








































































































































£ 'A* 

•jster* ** ** o 

f' ^ ° 1 V* v • £ 

* J> 

* c? Fi 





U 


o* A ?> 0 ^ 

*". -a.^ O -0 ^ 

0 « 0 ° ^ ' 1 * f 0 

, V .'*•-_ A? ^ 

• aV^ 

* . »< 


A 

V 6 ^ *LVL> 

*P V* ^ ^1.^ * 
^r> cy ♦ 

. ^ _, ° °?rv 

iu^ o imm* c$' f 'r\ 

effp* 4? % *yIW** J? °b, *aw * a v 

’*..•* A <b *'o. .<* <<y \o vt'.a A 

_i& „ >• ' » „ <£. 0^ c 0 " 0 -» ^o A- 

O ^ r - - c ' ts - ' 

■» *>*4*®' “ 

• o > » ., 



l* v °° * 


y > v' * Vl]\^§O x/ v 0 ^ 

ir ^ r\ A* * ^'\\\\\r ' 

* c£* «•> <L* 

• ^o V * •«° 0 a? 

*> v v . 

aTO V. jSrer^l /I W*. «• .A >* V 


*V ^ ‘ # 1 1 ’ A w ‘ <5> ~ o n o - ^ 

V * * # 0 * C\ <0^ * *V ^ ^ * o 

* :§mm\ 

a •- 5 SK* ** "• -y?C^,* a \ r\| 8 K* ^ a \. Vw, 

* * 5 4 aV^ <* '» • * * A°^ ^ *' 5 . s 4 A <, '»• * * . 6 * ^ 

„ .V *• /FMxy?? * ^ i > « ' , $^\V?!%,'' ... / dPfll/Z&r, ■» T. 

V . ^ O' 





r V 


* ° « 0 0 °^> * • < 1 * ^.° % 
■- *> v *i*°' c* **vl.'4. 

* *$* A V *t(V\S«A <^ * 


^ - 
L V 



,0 V o 0 N « -9 


^ * 

v V *"’* ^° V *«-«° ^ 

•’*»- c\ .0' ,»•”% "> v % 

«• A ° r?. cy 


° «5 ^ 


. V v< v 

^X V y^» O , _ . . v . . ^_ 

. NU/ r'lyyiM’ •> , ^ £> 4 <L V Y J. 

v A O 'c,,»» 0^ ^O •’■ 

A^ t • 1 *» ,0^ c 0 " ° -* ^o 

** ^ % « c '*^v, ° 

“ : <5 ^ 

s • • , \> \> 


^Kr»* x v ^ °. 

<b 


aV' <> A°^ 

A^ ,' L ' a ® ^ .Or c 0 " 0 -* "^O 

v * J&t{f7772? b'. 0 • ' 

# ° ^ °^ 0 

; >y° °* ^ 

^ _ /L ^^m\\\\v h k > * -rOy/IJ<dfr . ^ v*b 

^° ^ * O „ ° 0 

.. a0 V , w ^ ^ V N 

o +* 


"V 

o. ^ 


'^o' "bf :§jm@gp+ y^M 

^ ^ °* <& 

,K 0 +<211/*** r\ y "*'- (| ^^.' .K _ ‘ SZ/IW 

> v % 

: v^ x *<* 

m>: <f\ \jmgf: y\ -mM: J>\ \WS^: ^ 

♦ A ^ ^ ^'o oS^ <\ ^O • A ^ ,6* A^ ^>. 

.Or 0 ° N «♦ ^o <^ 0 t • b *<P n ^ 0 w c ^ a\ ^ 

^ a h <£<v\\V s V* <N ^ &j[/7sb rr ^ 

n> 0 ^ K ' p ^ > -C v 

. • o V . - 1 >* ry ° 

. * 



4 o 



»* w a\~ *\&sr/yp^ '~r ^ ~o *f* c/ 

• "§' ; ^&’: -'^fe- "fev* .'^^*- ’W 

.' 0 o * % ••!«' y °^ 0 , i0 V, ■-. ^. , 

./ . yflfrA V ,^ v ,.:^% \ - > ... .v' , 

~ ; W ' §mm, \ •* 

, .y^xF * v 5 °b . 

^ 'o.** .0^ ^ 


«t 

% ■•-,•’ ^0 
% J> 

^r» <& * 

\ ** <? - 

° A ^ Vy V 

. s s .A <v 'o. *« 0^ ^ * 

m- *-~/rr/^' *tr C° ° 0 

v* :£m£n;. -w • rfm ' v ' 


'..s* A <b "o.»* G^ *b 

t ^ u .LV ^ .0^ C° W0 ^ ^ 



° ^ °^ 



• v «>fj ^ V » 

” * X® * 

- kv •”• «. <^yy/\Y^ > * v <x •" 

^ - > T' NV ^ 5 ^* <^r o 0 ^ 

y % N o’ f O * # , n .' 0 ; 

. v .* VZ‘. % A° ♦wb/'v 

^ cA / 

°bG S “ 


V- v\' : ymmb °* > 9 7 » 
?; <A*\ k J .||P; A v, V * 

\5 ‘/T s s .A 



'b ,0^ C 0 "°-9 ^ 

y-r \j • tw.^ 

* <p k 4 ' 

r q< 

o a 'yymp? : r ^ 

A °-u ‘ ’ 1 ’' A 

«, v .:4,'i-. % j> .^ov.% ’ 

•; %A ’"A* >» c^ 




> 






VJ 

4 O 

^ * , 

> °* *•'’• A 0 V %,o’ / 

A«**b ^ ^ *> 

- ° C7 * y\fflBL^L 

o 
2 


0 




\0 v\ • * 4 o 

\. *•■'•’ *° v-H’ - y 

■ \ **° .•;«&*. * A ••- 
^ <L^> o ^ii^S. - 


•^o v 



^ * * 
‘O. * 



, - w 
** «?-* b '• 

.V ^ ' 


•* />•* d» * 

9 • 1 A ^ <£* * 0 M < 

'c\ A v 4 *V % *> 

-*o ^ a* S *§&*{• t<+ 

: ^ “JPSlr *W 


.0* c 0 ” c * **C 


r * 

4 .<r 


0* 


A 

^ 4 »■ 

V 


£» OP* 

i\ i? ^ 


Vr «* V>* < l> 

J. <s> V 

\0 *7* 

f v ^ ° 

+ rv ^ 5 L 




°^ 4,8 '’* f° ^ "o-o’ ^ o 

’ ^ <tj * „* *■£“>. a'®' 

* r£* A V *((Mf A ^r. c* * 

* Os/ o vJ^aF * -0? ^ • 

» . ^ ^ 4 <lV cU w 

A O 'o . k - 0^ \T> * 

j* s'Jr?*:* * 0° • c ^vl' °o 

v* cr 

° ^5 r \ r v ^ " 

.^ v ' °°- 

> ^ 



A. <*'•-- 

^ *'**?&>' *K C -^v>. °0 

\x K * ' / P / 4 

O V . ^ 0 

' » 4 _ 


o O P' 

• \° V, 

> ^ ^ ^ 



^ J - p®iW; ,^ v / 
• »* <y % a 

,v o « O ^ .<i> 

t 

< N ♦ i 

“VA 
O > 


i • 




$ ^ , 

V 0 ^ 

.0 ^ ^ O M ° 0 

J>' *•” 


^ / 1 


^ r - °»o- v- ^ ,0 

^ ) *»Vj■♦ ^ V A , * * o, o 

^ A^ A *V\V/k 

^ 'V • 

<, A ^ 

# l ' « ^ Q V e 0 M O * ''o 4 ^ ^ _ L • 

° Al ♦* 

^ v> 


v ° ♦ * * A v <; ^ r r* * ■ v 

<i> A ' 0 " O A '• 

■» ^0 c. 0 _ ^ -» . o 


»* 0° + 

■ V A u ^ ° " c 

V A*°. C> <0 V s s *'"-v ^ 

• Te a^ - ^ ^ 

<?“ 0 A * -T^ JfcZ^ • %<> . 

v ° ; V\ 

\V*^. »ww™ * A < - r 

* aV "A, aJCT * w ' 

,u O "'^As ' 5 A <. '° . A jS? 

<y o 0 *. ^ .. 1 ' * * 

♦ 

^ Cr 
4 o 

S kV 

« 0 9 A °0, "• 

, ,0 V ,.-- % "> V X ,-o, %> 

V A *‘^lfe'-. ^ ^ *>S&' 

• A vT, 

•* y;v 





% ^ 

o V" v ^"" / ^Z * 

O »'*4V~S A /a '> t! W. s / o ‘ 

^ v °^. * • * 1 * f 0 *b. " •« 0 0 A* 

V A*°" C' aP 4 * 4 , > V - y * 

> a ;A 4 *» V a 
Kr*p :§mm\ ^ ^ 

• ^ ^rv J o 

% *■'77?* A <> 

‘ N <? ^ . t. / a * 

-bv* :§m$P' **■ o' 

j>° v ^ °-* 

,0 ,*V^ V V ^ , *°- O 

^ ^ a v * Asr A 



,v^ 

4 V-- w* --wwy» ^ ** 

A v \r> *//A A 

0 V , o " o * *^b A^ o 

o ,\*staw*% o A 

»• ^ 

» , T A - * 0 „ 0 0 A O * 

. Ap v s!V % "> 

^fN cjv- ♦ r\jt||ll5») ° 




V • O 




























CONVERSION 
OF RETROSPECTIVE 
CATALOG RECORDS TO 
MACHINE-READABLE 
FORM 




















ERRATA 


The calculation of the estimated costs of the computer config¬ 
uration for second and third shifts (pages 69-72) was based on erroneous 
information. More accurate budgetary estimates for the basic configura¬ 
tion (p. 69) are: two shifts, $49*000 per month; three shifts, $55*000. 
For the additional storage (p. 70), the two-shift estimate should be 
$l6,000 and the three-shift estimate, $17*000. As a result, the following 
corrections should be made: 

Page Paragraph Line Correction 


71 2 

72 1 

3 

4 

100 3 


5 $53*000 

3 $ 53,000 

4 17,000 

5 104,000 


1 $49*000 

2 16,000 

3 97*000 


2 $7. 0 million 

4 3.8 million 


6 $49*000 

9 81,000 


The error is regretted. 








CONVERSION 
OF RETROSPECTIVE 
CATALOG RECORDS TO 
MACHINE-READABLE 

FORM 
A Study of the 
Feasibility of a National 
Bibliographic Service 


Prepared by the RECON Working Task Force 
Henriette D. Avram, Chairman 
William R. Nugent, Josephine S. Pulsifer, John C. Rather 
Joseph A. Rosenthal, Allen B. Veaner 


LIBRARY OF CONGRESS • WASHINGTON • 1969 


Edited by John C. Rather 


L.C. Card 70-601790 


For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $2.25 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


Foreword v 

Acknowledgments viii 

1 INTRODUCTION » 1 

2 MAJOR CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10 

3 USES OF CONVERTED BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA 13 

4 MASTER DATA BASE 20 

5 TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES: MACHINE CONSIDERATIONS 39 

6 TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES: MANPOWER CONSIDERATIONS 74 

7 COSTS OF CONVERSION 97 

8 FUNDING AND OTHER SUPPORT CONSIDERATIONS 102 

APPENDIXES 

A Duplication in U. S. Library Collections 106 

B Actual and Planned Data Conversion Activities in 
Selected Libraries and Their Use of Library of 

Congress Cataloging 111 

C Summary of Interviews with Consultants 125 

D Library of Congress Catalog Records: Past and Future 136 

E Changes in Library of Congress Catalog Cards: Their 

Extent, Method, and Types l4l 

F Completeness of Machine-Readable Catalog Records 163 

iii 


G Format Recognition 169 

H Computer Requirements for a National Bibliographic 

Service 183 

I Staff Complements and Unit Costs 224 

Index 227 


FOREWORD 


As a result of the MARC Pilot Project, growing acceptance of the 
MARC II format, and the implementation of the MARC Distribution Service, 
libraries throughout the country are beginning to discuss and, in some 
instances, to plan the conversion of their catalog records to machine- 
readable form. Since funds and manpower available for this purpose vary 
among libraries and their bibliographic needs are not always similar, the 
machine-readable products of uncoordinated conversion projects would differ 
with respect to completeness and uniformity. Local conversion would also 
result in a great deal of duplication of bibliographic information about 
the same items. Not only do the consequences of these eventualities appear 
economically unsound but also they have serious implications for future 
plans to create a national data base of bibliographic information in 
machine-readable form. 

The Library of Congress has accepted the responsibility for the 
conversion of its current cataloging to the MARC II format. The Library 
is also conducting studies to determine the feasibility of converting its 
retrospective material. In view of widespread interest, it seemed timely 
and appropriate to take a closer look at the problems of centralized con¬ 
version of retrospective cataloging records and their distribution to the 


v 


entire library community from a central source. If a workable plan could 
be conceived and implemented, the machine-readable records would be con¬ 
sistent, the cost savings would be significant, and the first steps toward 
creation of a national data base would have been taken. 

When the Library of Congress presented a proposal for a study of 
this problem to the Council on Library Resources, Inc., the Council was 
quick to recognize the far-reaching significance of the undertaking by pro¬ 
viding funds without delay. An advisory committee composed of members of 
the library profession was appointed to provide guidance for the study 
which was dubbed RECON (REtrospective CONversion). Direct responsibility 
for the study was assigned to a working task force composed of librarians 
and systems analysts representing different types of libraries. Henriette D. 
Avram was chosen to chair the working task force because she conceived the 
idea for the study and wrote the proposal for the Library of Congress. 

Despite the many days devoted to the study, all of the members 
served on the RECON Working Task Force without compensation and their 
parent organizations generously allowed time for this purpose. This will¬ 
ingness to contribute the service of experienced personnel does great 
credit to everyone concerned. It enabled the task force to take a long, 
hard look at the manifold problems of large-scale conversion of retrospec¬ 
tive cataloging records. It is hoped that the findings will benefit the 
library community and lay the foundation for further planning in this area. 

John G. Lorenz 

Deputy Librarian of Congress 

Officer-in-Charge, RECON Study 

vi 


RECQN STUDY 


Officer-in-Charge : John G. Lorenz, Deputy Librarian 

of Congress 

Working Task Force : 


Mrs. Henriette D. Avram, Chairman 
Library of Congress 

John C. Rather 

Library of Congress 

William R. Nugent 

Inforonics, Inc. 

Joseph A. Rosenthal 

New York Public Library 

Mrs. Josephine Pulsifer 

Washington State Library 

Allen B. Veaner 

Stanford University Libraries 

Advisory Committee: 



John G. Lorenz, Chairman 


Scott Adams 

Deputy Director 

National Library of Medicine 

Abraham Lebowitz 

Assistant to the Director 

National Agricultural Library 

Col. Andrew A. Aines, Chairman 
Committee on Scientific and 
Technical Information 

Federal Council for Science 
and Technology 

Maryan E. Reynolds 

State Librarian 

Washington State Library 

Herman H. Fussier 

Director 

University of Chicago 

Ruther for d D. Ro ger s 

Director of Libraries 

Stanford University 

James W. Henderson 

Chief, Reference Department 

New York Public Library 

Russell Shank 

Director of Libraries 

Smithsonian Institution 

Frederick G. Kilgour 

Director 

The Ohio College Library Center 

James E. Skipper 

University Librarian 

University of California, Berkeley 


vii 






ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 


The RECON study provides a notable example of cooperative effort 
to explore a critical library problem. The Council on Library Resources, 
Inc., and its president, Fred C. Cole, responded with alacrity to a request 
for funds to support the study. The time of the members of the working 
task force was donated by each member’s organization. Thanks for this 
generosity are due L. Quincy Mumford, Librarian of Congress; Lawrence F. 
Buckland, President, Inforonics, Inc.; Edward G. Freehafer, Director, The 
New York Public Library; Maryan E. Reynolds, State Librarian of Washington; 
and Rutherford D. Rogers, Director, Stanford University Libraries. 

The members of the advisory committee took time from their busy 
schedules to attend two day-long meetings and to comment on the development 
of the projects. The deliberations of the advisory committee were enhanced 
by the participation of the following representatives of major funding 
agencies: Burton W. Adkinson, Head, Office of Science Information Service, 
National Science Foundation; Lee G. Burchinal, Director of Information 
Technology and Dissemination, Bureau of Research, U. S. Office of Education; 
Dr. Cole; and Foster E. Mohrhardt, Program Officer, Council on Library 
Resources, Inc. 

Experts in the field of library automation responded generously 


viii 


to the RECON Working Task Force’s solicitation of their opinions on the 
conversion problem. All of them, gave their advice and comments freely. 

The list of their names appears with the summary of their views in Appen¬ 
dix C. 

Seventy libraries agreed to be interviewed by representatives of 
Herner and Company on behalf of the RECON Working Task Force. The willing¬ 
ness of these libraries to share their experiences and plans concerning 
conversion of catalog records to machine-readable form provided significant 
insights into the problem. The names of the libraries appear in Appendix B. 

Although it is not feasible to name every Library of Congress 
staff member who gave assistance or was consulted during the investigation, 
the working task force is especially indebted to Susan C. Biebel. Her 
skill in developing statistical data and her diligence in carrying out a 
multitude of assignments made an essential contribution to the study and 
the final report. 

In addition to the library survey, two other contractual efforts 
were used in the RECON study. Coyle and Stewart prepared an analysis of 
computer requirements that provided a starting point for Appendix H. Use 
was made also of a study of optical character recognition and conversion 
devices and procedures by Auerbach and Company which was done concurrently 
at the Library of Congress. 

Special thanks are due John A. Bayless of Planning Research 
Corporation who donated a day of his time to share his experience in large- 
scale file conversion. 


ix 


The evidence of genuine interest in the problem of retrospective 
conversion was apparent everywhere and there was no lack of opinion about 
how it might be resolved. The working task force is grateful to the many 
individuals and organizations who contributed to the study in one way or 
another. It is to be understood, of course, that the working task force 
assumes full responsibility for the use made of this information. 


x 


Chapter 1 


INTRODUCTION 

As libraries develop their plans for automation, it becomes 
increasingly apparent that the full benefits of the computer cannot be real¬ 
ized unless large stores of bibliographic information are available in 
machine-readable form. The MARC Distribution Service inaugurated by the 
Library of Congress will provide a source of current cataloging data that, 
as time, resources, and technology permit, can be expanded to cover virtu¬ 
ally all of the Library’s current output. Although this may take care of 
the future, the task of converting the large masses of cataloging infor¬ 
mation produced during the last "JO years still must be faced. 

To accomplish both types of conversion, several critical problems 
must be solved: 

1. Identification of user needs for retrospective cataloging 
data. 

It is obvious that libraries cannot base their products and serv¬ 
ices solely upon records to be created from this day forward; the biblio¬ 
graphic responsibilities of libraries extend into the past as well as the 
future. Is a retrospective machine-readable data base needed to service 
these responsibilities? If so, how shall it be obtained? What might it 


1 


cost? How would it be distributed? These are some of the questions which 
immediately arise. 

2. The means of maintaining standardization of the machine for¬ 
mat for machine-readable catalog records so that libraries 
can exchange information in this form. 

Even in manual systems based upon card and book catalogs, the 
effective interchange and communication of bibliographic data depends on 
standardization. Owing to the computer’s intolerance of ambiguity in 
source data, the future transmission and exchange of machine-readable 
records will be even more dependent upon standardization. Acceptance of 
MARC II as a standard communication format will provide a common currency 
for machine-readable catalog records that will perform much the same 
function as Library of Congress printed cards have done for over two-thirds 
of a century. 

3. The technical requirements for large-scale storage and 
retrieval of the data store. 

Bibliographic data by its nature presents problems in machine 
input, processing, and output that differ markedly from those posed by 
numeric data or even by straightforward alphabetic text. The development 
of the MARC system and the important work at libraries elsewhere have con¬ 
tributed greatly to the solution of these problems. Nevertheless, the 
requirements for large-scale conversion operations demand further study 
and, in some cases, implementation must await successful development of 
new equipment. 


2 


4. The systems design and the necessary software required to 
create, maintain, and disseminate information from a large 
data base. 

Much has been said and written about network concepts and 
national data bases, but the discussions have been largely at a level 
divorced from specifics. A pioneering effort is required to plan and 
implement an actual system. The dynamic nature of bibliographic files 
creates updating problems of great magnitude. In general, bibliographic 
records do not become archival; they must be capable of being accessed 
regardless of their age. To achieve maximum flexibility in retrieving 
information from a large data base of bibliographical records, it is 
necessary to provide more than one form of access to the information. 

These and other problems require the design of file organization and 
searching techniques that will allow for the most efficient retrieval of 
records from a large data base. The planning and design of distribution 
services also requires a major programming effort to handle the many 
logistic problems. 

5. The staffing and funding requirements for a major conversion 
project. 

Capturing retrospective bibliographic information in machine- 
readable form—to the point where a significantly useful data store will 
be available—is not a matter of arriving at standards, determining 
priorities, and developing hardware and software techniques alone. The 
administrative and personnel framework must be designed and the means of 


3 


financing all aspects of the task envisioned before such a project can be 
contemplated as a part of ongoing library operations, whether undertaken 
at one or many institutions. 

Although conversion of retrospective records has been discussed 
in various contexts^/, these problems have never been fully explored. In 
view of their magnitude, it seems intuitively clear that a centralized 
effort to create a data base of retrospective catalog records for national 
use would have significant benefits in terms of the time, effort, and 
money to achieve the desired result. On the other hand, decentralized 
efforts would carry heavy penalties. 

Since funds and manpower for automation vary widely among 
libraries and their needs for bibliographic description are not always 
similar, the machine-readable records resulting from individual projects 
will probably reflect varying degrees of completeness. The economic 
penalties associated with nonstandardized bibliographic procedures are 
familiar to library administrators. The purported need to deviate from 
standards in favor of local practices could readily be defended as long 
as little was known of the costs associated with creation of a custom- 
tailored bibliographic product. But management’s relentless attention to 
cost-effectiveness is gradually exposing hidden costs and the built-in 

1. See, for example, De Gennaro, Richard. A strategy for the conversion 
of research library catalogs to machine-readable form. College and 
research libraries, v. 28, July 1967, 253-257. 


k 



record keeping and accounting functions of computer services provide evi¬ 
dence of inefficiencies. 

A principal component cost of any computer system is software 
development. Indeed, software development and maintenance investments 
frequently surpass the costs of machine-processing time. This suggests 
that, in the absence of a national program for conversion, many libraries 
might undertake to develop essentially the same software at great individ¬ 
ual cost. There is, moreover, the danger that independent efforts would 
result in incompatible record formats and variations in the content of the 
records that would inhibit effective, economical utilization of networks 
for the future communication of bibliographic data. Therefore, the ques¬ 
tion naturally arises: Why not write the software once, convert a full, 
accurate, up-to-date record, and distribute a standardized product, all 
on a centralized basis? 

The National Program for Acquisitions and Cataloging has pro¬ 
vided within a period of only a few years (since 1966) a significant 
increase in the amount of cataloging data for foreign language titles 
available from a central source. This suggests that a similar central¬ 
ized approach for retrospective data through the Library of Congress might 
satisfy the library community’s need in this area. If this conversion 
effort could comprehend the needs of other libraries as well as those of 
the Library of Congress, it should result in a true national data base 
characterized by accuracy, consistency, and economy of production. 

The present study undertakes to examine in detail: 


5 


1. The present state of the art of hardware and software applic¬ 
able to large-scale conversion, storage, and retrieval of 
retrospective bibliographic information. 

2. The organizational and administrative aspects of the task, 
including considerations of which existing files are most 
suitable for conversion, which segments of those files 
should have priority for conversion, and how best to accom¬ 
plish the job. 

3. Costs of hardware, software, and manpower for such a project. 

4. Possible approaches to the timing and funding of the project; 
and areas that need intensive additional study. 

The complexity of the concept of conversion of retrospective 
catalog records has affected both the organization and the substance of 
this report. The main body of the report examines the various problems 
involved, explores possible solutions, and offers recommendations for 
action. Supporting studies and documentation are given in the appendixes. 
These include: (l) reports of consultations with knowledgeable and 
interested individuals and organizations other than the working task force 
and the advisory committee; (2) statistical reports substantiating certain 
conclusions embodied in the report (e.g., duplication of library collec¬ 
tions, changes in Library of Congress cards); (3) extended descriptions 
of fundamental concepts (e.g., completeness of machine-readable catalog 
records, format recognition), which are only summarized in the report 
itself; and (4) detailed presentations (e.g., unit costs, machine 


6 


configurations) elaborating certain aspects of the proposals developed 
in the course of the study. 

The exceedingly wide range of possible alternatives at almost 
every step of this study forced the working task force to make certain 
choices and assumptions that deserve to be stated for the reader. The 
technologies discussed are either operative or in the process of actual 
development. Proposals for the organization, design, and goals of a 
conversion project are made within the framework of an attainable system 
that would result in a product of general utility. Nevertheless, this 
report does not pretend to be a definitive blueprint of a fully conceived 
conversion project. Both the brief span of the study and the many 
uncertainties about specific details made it impossible to do more than 
provide a broad outline of the problems and how they might be solved. 

It is hoped, that the report provides a solid foundation for further 
development and implementation of a workable project. 

This study has focused on the feasibility of the conversion of 
catalog records to machine-readable form as a centralized effort by ana¬ 
lyzing some of the problems that must be solved. It has not attempted to 
predict all of the ways that these records would or could be used once 
they have been created, although a general discussion of some possible uses 
of machine-readable records is given in chapter 3. The question of the 
utility of machine-readable records is relevant not only to retrospective 
records: it applies equally to current records that are being converted. 
Therefore, although the question should be studied, it was considered to 

7 


351-845 0 - 69—2 


be out of the scope of the present investigation. 

There are, in fact, many problems that are common to all machine- 
readable records whether current or retrospective. Cataloging rules, pro¬ 
vision for filing arrangement, representation of nonroman or other special 
characters, and techniques for organizing and using large machine files 
raise important questions that merit study. All of these problems are 
being or should be investigated but they were considered only tangentially 
in this report because of the primary emphasis on the problems of convert¬ 
ing existing catalog records as they now stand. 

In addition, it was considered beyond the scope of the present 
study to investigate all of the problems inherent in the maintenance and 
use of a national bibliographic system. The full realization of the bene¬ 
fits of such a system will depend on the accumulation of practical experi¬ 
ence in the organization, maintenance, and use of large bibliographic data 
files and intensive effort in system design. 

This study shows that there is widespread interest in conversion, 
an appreciable amount of ongoing activity (in both actual conversion and 
in the development of techniques directly applicable to the task), and 
evidence that many libraries would be willing to follow common standards 
(such as the MARC II format and uniform cataloging practices). To insure 
the success of a conversion effort, there must be not only general 
acceptance of these and other standards, but also a willingness on the 
part of libraries and the professional associations in the field to give 
a high priority to the search for funds adequate to insure a product of 


value in the foreseeable future. It is vital to realize that any coordi¬ 
nated effort to convert retrospective bibliographical information must 
elicit strong support from the library community. 


9 



Chapter 2 

MAJOR CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 


A. General Conclusions 

1. The MARC Distribution Service should be expanded to cover 
all languages and all forms of material as rapidly as resources and tech¬ 
nology allow. There should be no conversion of any category of retrospec¬ 
tive records until that category is being currently converted. 

2. Conversion of some portion of retrospective records to 
machine-readable form should be an early goal of library automation efforts. 

3* Conversion for a national bibliographic data base requires 
standardization of bibliographic content and machine format. Standards 
for conversion of retrospective records should be the same as those for 
current records. 

4. The highest priority for retrospective conversion should be 
given to records most likely to be useful to the largest number of librar¬ 
ies. As nearly as possible, subsequent priorities should be determined by 
the same criteria. 

5. Large-scale conversion should be accomplished as a central¬ 
ized project. Decentralized conversion would be more costly and unlikely 
to satisfy requirements for standardization. The project should be under 


10 



the direction of the Library of Congress. 


B. Specific Recommendations 

1 . The records to be converted should in effect be those in 
the LC Official Catalog. Actual conversion would require a two-step pro¬ 
cess: conversion of portions of the Card Division record set followed 
by updating the records from the Official Catalog. 

2 . The initial conversion effort should be limited to English 
language monograph records issued from i960 to date. Second priority 
should be given to Romance and German language monograph records issued 
from i 960 . Third priority should be given to English language monograph 
records issued from 1898-1959* 

3. To meet the emerging needs of libraries, every effort should 
be made to convert priority one and two records within four years. Con¬ 
version of these and other records should start with the most recent year 
and proceed backward in reverse chronological order. 

L. Initially, the method of conversion should involve: 

a. Partial editing of entries from the record set prior 
to input. 

b. Conversion by magnetic tape inscriber. 

c. Application of a format recognition program. 

d. Comparison of records with the LC Official Catalog. 

e. Verification of records (using statistical quality 
control) prior to transfer to storage. 


11 





5. The problems of creating a complete national bibliographic 
data store should be studied. This would involve determining the best 
means of obtaining standardized records for bibliographic items not repre¬ 
sented in the Library of Congress record set. The study should also 
investigate the feasibility of establishing a true national union catalog 
by recording holdings of American libraries in the machine-readable data 
store. 

6 . If the foregoing conclusions and recommendations are accepted: 

a. An implementation committee should be formed to investi¬ 
gate the sources of funds for the following tasks: 

(1) Development of a detailed design of a system in 
terms of hardware, software, procedures, and admin¬ 
istrative organization. This should include con¬ 
sideration of the adaptability of programs of the 
MARC system and the proposed hardware/software con¬ 
figuration for the LC Card Division mechanization 
project. 

(2) A pilot project to test the proposed conversion sys¬ 
tem. Ideally, it would cover the highest priority 
material (English language records, 1960-1968). 

( 3 ) Long-term operation of the conversion effort. 

b. If funds are procured, a project should be established -go 
carry out the developmental work as quickly as resources 
permit. 


12 


Chapter 3 

USES OF CONVERTED BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA 

A prime reason for converting catalog records to machine-readable 
form is to achieve greater flexibility in manipulating the data. This 
flexibility will facilitate searching and retrieval; it will lessen the 
effort of updating the records; and it will contribute to production of 
a wide variety of cataloging products (cards, book catalogs, special lists, 
book labels, etc. ) Although initially most of the applications will be 
along traditional lines, computerization of cataloging data should give 
an added dimension to bibliographic control that may materially alter 
familiar patterns of use. Since it is beyond the scope of the RECON study 
to make a detailed exploration of the potential of machine-readable cata¬ 
loging data, however, this chapter is limited to a general discussion of 
some of the possibilities. 

The conversion of current cataloging records to machine-readable 
form satisfies needs related to the processing of current acquisitions 
but, by themselves, current records would not fill the needs of full-scale 
searching and retrieval. If a data base of machine-readable catalog 
records is built solely in terms of current and future cataloging output, 
libraries will have to face the consequences of having a dual system: 


13 



part machine, part manual. In practice this means that searches for known 
items and retrieval of records by subject would often be handicapped by 
uncertainty as to the proper file to approach and the necessity of using 
both files. 

Library acquisitions do not follow a straightforward pattern 
that insures obtaining imprints only in the year of their publication. 
Therefore, in considering potential uses of retrospective bibliographic 
data in machine-readable form, it should be emphasized that the term "retror- 
spective" has two quite different connotations when applied to catalog 
records. In the most obvious sense, the term applies to the records for 
materials already acquired and cataloged for the Library’s collection. 

When this is true, the records can be termed "true retrospective" records. 
In another sense, however, it applies to catalog records needed for 
materials published in previous years but currently being acquired and 
cataloged by a library. Such records may fill a "current retrospective" 
need. It follows then that the type of application (acquisitions, union 
catalog, etc. ) and the characteristics of both the existing collection and 
current acquisitions will determine the most useful data base for a given 
library or library system. 

The ability to search existing holdings by machine to avoid 
ordering unwanted duplicates and to verify a requested item against a 
reliable data base would be an obvious boon to the acquisition process 
of any library. To obtain the maximum benefits, a library should have 
its entire file in machine-readable form. Otherwise, some proportion of 


14 


the searches will have to be made in both the manual and machine files. 
This might not be troublesome in a scientific library that acquires vir¬ 
tually no retrospective items because of the high rate of obsolescence of 
published material in its field. For such a library, time would take care 
of the problem of dual files. A general library could not anticipate such 
a simple solution to the problem. Unless its retrospective records were 
converted it would have to maintain a manual file indefinitely. 

Availability of an extensive body of machine-readable biblio¬ 
graphic records would facilitate catalog production and maintenance in all 
kinds of individual libraries and library systems. Catalogs of an entire 
library system could be duplicated for branches or departmental libraries. 
Catalogs that are deteriorating or damaged could be rehabilitated as 
required and the integrity and security of this major bibliographic tool 
could more readily be preserved. Catalogs could be updated from changes 
made to the central record, so that, for the first time, it would be 
possible for many libraries to keep abreast of changes in descriptive 
cataloging, subject analysis, and classification. 

The availability of converted retrospective bibliographic data 
; would promote uniform standards of classification, descriptive and subject 
cataloging. Individual library catalogs could be matched to the standard 
1 data base to provide union catalogs or system-wide catalogs. Centralized 
services--acquisitions, production of ready-to-file catalog cards or book 
catalogs and of book preparation materials (bookcards, pockets, spine 
labels)--would be more acceptable and generally of better quality if 


15 







based on retrospective as well as current LC records in MARC format. 
Commercial services would likewise benefit from such a data base, and 
could provide complete bibliographic "packages" for libraries which pre¬ 
fer purchasing such services in contrast to entering into cooperative sys¬ 
tems or performing the work in-house. 

The retrospective data base would also be a source of records 
for the control of circulation, interlibrary loans, and the rotation of 
materials among branches of a system. Usually these purposes could be 
served by a briefer record than would be needed in other applications but 
there would be no difficulty in abbreviating a standard record if that 
were desirable. The MARC II format offers great flexibility in selecting 
data for specially tailored needs. 

Automated circulation, acquisitions, cataloging, and inter- 
library records could also be analyzed by type of material, subject, 
language, date, and other characteristics to provide the kind of manage¬ 
ment data that is so conspicuously lacking in libraries. Such information 
is needed for planning acquisitions, new buildings, departmental or branch 
collections, storage space, stack space, work load and staff projections, 
networks, and many other facilities and services. 

The potential applications of converted bibliographic data 
extend far beyond assistance and cooperation in technical services, data- 
processing operations, and provision of management information. Substan¬ 
tial benefits could be derived from improved access to bibliographic infor¬ 
mation. For example, in retrieving catalog records, it should be possible 


16 


to use subject headings and descriptive information (e.g., language of the 
text, imprint date) together to reduce the user's effort in a way that it 
is impossible in present-day catalogs. Using these and other techniques, 
the machine-readable data base should provide the means of producing 
special bibliographies that would be far too costly and time-consuming to 
prepare manually. It is also likely that such bibliographies would be 
more accurate and exhaustive than those obtainable by human effort. Given 
the proper hardware and software, the variety of uses of machine-readable 
cataloging data would be limited only by the imagination of the user. 

The provision of new and highly flexible records coupled with 
greatly expanded file access is likely to stimulate a variety of applica¬ 
tions as yet unforeseen. The research questions and/or programs that 
follow from the existence of a national bibliographic store may be: 

1. Consideration of the long range future of the local library 
catalog. 

2. Replacement of the present "all or nothing" approach to 
bibliography by a graded series of bibliographic records with 
access time and completeness varying inversely with cost. 

3 . Rapid dissemination of preliminary records to be replaced 
later by more complete records. 

4. Investigations of users' interactions with large data bases 

in a variety of environments and styles of presentation; i.e., 
new and different card files, possibly with different card 
designs and different file organization; book catalogs; 


17 





on-line, interactive searching with and without libraries as 
"negotiators." 

5. Construction and testing of file organization models in a 
real world environment. It is conceivable that more than 
one mode of file organization might be developed as a func¬ 
tion of differences in file activity, the nature of various 
entries, or the characteristics of different inquirers. 

6. Evaluation of the role of diacritical marks, graphical repre¬ 
sentations of nonroman alphabets, and vernacular search terms 
from the viewpoint of international application of machine- 
readable bibliographic data. 

The standardization of the bibliographic record and of its 
machine format would make possible the transmission and sharing of infor¬ 
mation among libraries to an extent never before possible. If large files 
of retrospective records existed, union catalogs either in book form or 
accessible by terminal could be used to locate materials in a region. On¬ 
line retrieval from a bibliographic center or region would also be a pos¬ 
sibility but many problems must be solved before it can become a practical¬ 
ity. 

Inter library cooperation could take many forms, from improved 
interlibrary loan and cooperative acquisitions programs to elaborate net¬ 
works utilizing the latest computer and communication technology. All of 
these advances would depend on access to information beyond the individual 
library. A program for the conversion of Library of Congress retrospective 


18 


records to machine-readable form could extend logically to development of 
a true national union catalog, listing locations of all titles held by 
American libraries. This possibility is explored in the next chapter. If 
feasible, it might provide effective national bibliographic control for a 
true national library network and pave the way for international biblio¬ 
graphic control in combination with the National Program for Acquisitions 


and Cataloging. 





Chapter 4 
MASTER DATA BASE 

A. Factors Affecting Choice of a Data Base 

The selection of a master data base of retrospective catalog 
records for conversion must take into account the factors of (l) dupli¬ 
cation in whatever data base is chosen and the collections of prospective 
users, (2) acceptability of the data base with respect to bibliographic 
accuracy and completeness, and ( 3 ) forms of material to be excluded. 

1. Duplication 

Studies of U. S. library collections show that there is consider¬ 
able duplication (see appendix A) and a recent study indicates that the 
extent of duplication is increasing. In general, the larger the library, 
the more likely it is to include the holdings of other libraries, and the 
more likely it is to own works that other libraries have not acquired. 
Specifically, the Library of Congress was shown to hold 80 .3 percent of 
the titles held by 11 regional catalogs in 1942. More recent data show 
that over 50 percent of reports to the post-1956 National Union Catalog are 
on LC cards, notwithstanding the fact th-t the criteria for contributing 
to NUC reduce reporting in categories of material in which extensive 


20 



duplication is known to occur (e.g., standard U. S. imprints). 

These studies constitute a strong argument for focusing the con¬ 
version effort on the largest available catalog. It would provide the 
greatest coverage of titles held by other libraries and at the same time 
would include many titles not held by any other library. The largest 
catalog in North America is the National Union Catalog. The LC Official 
Catalog ranks next, although it is possible that two other research library 
catalogs may be of comparable size. As will be shown, however, size is 
not the sole criterion for selection of a master data base. 

2. Bibliographic Accuracy and Completeness 

To be of maximum usefulness, a national data base should meet an 
acceptable standard of bibliographic accuracy and completeness. Even 
allowing for the fact that older LC catalog records have not always been 
changed as new policies and new cataloging rules have been adopted, few 
libraries have adopted standard cataloging rules as completely or applied 
them as consistently as the Library of Congress. The lack of uniformity 
in the cataloging practices of other U. S. libraries is revealed by 
striking variations in entry among reports to the National Union Catalog 
(see appendix A). Thus, the wide dissemination and acceptance of LC 
cataloging in the form of cards and book catalogs gives it the status of 
a national standard. 

3 . Exclusion of Certain Forms of Data 

Serials have been excluded from the present study because they 


21 


are to be converted by the National Serials Data Program of the three 
national libraries and thus consideration of them in the present study 
would be redundant. Moreover, the survey of libraries engaged in or con¬ 
templating conversion (see appendix B) revealed that many of them were 
concentrating on monographs. The consultants interviewed (appendix C) 
were also in favor of focusing on monographs. 

Nonbook materials have been excluded from the study for much the 
same reason. It is the opinion of the working task force, corroborated 
by the consultants interviewed, that despite the importance of nonbook 
materials, monographs should have priority for a national data store. In 
addition, formats for machine-readable records for these materials have yet 
to be developed. Only after a list of data elements has been agreed on 
and content designators developed can a standard data base be created. 

B. Consideration of Existing Files 

1. Library of Congress Official Catalog 

The LC Official Catalog is the most suitable choice of the master 
data base with respect to the completeness, accuracy, and quality of the 
bibliographic information it contains. Although no comparative studies 
are available, it seems doubtful that any other library can match the LC 
record for keeping its catalog up to date. 

A study of the extent, method, and types of changes in LC cata¬ 
log cards is reprinted as appendix E to this report. The study shows 
that in random samples of cards produced over the last 30 years the 


22 



average percent of records changed varies from 4.5 percent after one year 
to 41.9 percent after JO years. The data elements most frequently changed 
are subject headings, with added entries and main entries also ranking 
high. 

There are obstacles to using the Official Catalog as the file 
to be converted. First of all, the name portion of the catalog contains 
about 12 million cards, including main, added, and subject entries; name 
authority cards; series treatment cards; and other types of control records. 
Thus,it would be time-consuming and costly to search this file for all or 
part of the four million discrete catalog records produced by the Library 
of Congress since 1898. Second, the master records themselves frequently 
contain so many additions and changes that they would be difficult or 
impossible to use in almost any conversion process. The best way to over¬ 
come these obstacles would be to first convert the LC Card Division record 
set (see next section) and then to update the resulting machine-readable 
records by comparing them with the master records in the Official Catalog. 
The proposed procedure is described in detail in the following chapters. 

I 2. LC Card Division Record Set 

The record set of the Library of Congress Card Division consists 
of a master copy of the latest revised reprint of every LC printed card, 
arranged by card series and, within each series, by card number. The fact 
I that the record set is subdivided by card series and can be segregated into 
:j specific time periods makes it a tempting candidate for conversion. Not 
| only can a specific time period be selected for conversion (e.g., the 

2 3 


351-845 0 - 69—3 



last 10 years) but also periods when different cataloging rules and prac¬ 
tices were in effect can be readily segregated for special treatment as 
necessary. Finally, the records, which are clean and legible, appear only 
once in the file for each bibliographic item. 

The primary disadvantage of the record set from the standpoint 
of conversion stems from the fact that only certain types of changes in 
cataloging cause the record to be reprinted. Revised reprints result 
primarily from changes in main entry, title, or other elements necessary 
for correct identification of the book. Changes in added and subject 
entries, contents notes, and classification numbers are typed or hand¬ 
written in the Library’s own catalogs and remain in this form unless the 
card is reprinted for another reason. Since these changes do not appear 
in the record set, a data base produced from this source alone would be 
seriously out of date, and the burden of updating added author and subject 
entries would be placed on the user libraries. This would mean changing 
the same record many times in many places. Apart from the repetitious 
labor involved, this approach would be unsatisfactory because local up¬ 
dating would not always be done in a standard way. 

3. National Union Catalog 

The National Union Catalog contains an estimated seven million 
titles in addition to the approximately four million LC records, and thus 
consitutes a more complete data base than the LC catalog. The types 
of publications that figure most prominently among titles not covered by 

3X1 cards include: dissertations; state and local publications; analytics; 

2b 


foreign language titles; and editions that LC catalogs as copies. These 
categories do not reflect the titles most duplicated among various library 
collections and therefore most in demand from a national data base. 

The variation in entry reported to NUC for the same title has 
already been mentioned. There is no effective standardization in the 
reports as received by NUC, other than those reported on LC cards, and 
the NUC editing operation attempts only to check the main and added entries 
for conformity to established LC form. The body of the card and the sub¬ 
ject headings (if present) are not edited in any way. It would, therefore, 
be impossible to create a data base conforming to any acceptable standard 
of accuracy and uniformity from the National Union Catalog. The desira¬ 
bility of including non-LC cataloged items for an eventual true national 
data store is discussed in section F of this chapter. 

Library of Congress Shelflist 

The LC shelflist has been suggested as a desirable source file 
for conversion. This approach, based on experience with the Harvard shelf¬ 
list conversion project, favors conversion by subject groups. The pros and 
cons of a subject approach are discussed in section C and appendix C. 

The overwhelming disadvantage of this method as far as the LC 
shelflist is concerned stems from the composition of that file. It con¬ 
tains a mixture of temporary, incomplete, and printed records with essen¬ 
tially no corrective changes beyond revision or updating LC class and book 
number. Nor are the cards legible enough to be microfilmed to provide a 
readable guide to locating the master records in the Official Catalog. 

25 


Various languages, alphabets, and different eras of cataloging rules are 
not easily separated in the shelflist. 

C. Approaches to Conversion of the Master Data Base 

The choice of the monographic records in LC Official Catalog as 
the master data base for conversion leaves unresolved the problem of how 
such an immense a task could be undertaken. Even if the goal is total 
conversion, priorities must be established because, under the best circum¬ 
stances, the time required for the job must be reckoned in years. As a 
practical matter, therefore, it is essential to define subsets of the file 
to insure that maximum benefits can be obtained for the effort expended. 

Portions of the master data base can be selected for conversion 
on the basis of (l) subject, (2) special bibliographies, (3) date, (4) lan¬ 
guage, and (5) on-demand requests. 

1. Subject 

A subject approach to conversion has the appeal of providing 
packages that, superficially, can be defined with a certain amount of 
precision. In practical terms, however, a priority scheme based on sub¬ 
jects is highly impractical because the LC shelflist is not usable either 
as the master data base or as a record for initial conversion with sub¬ 
sequent update from the Official Catalog. Furthermore, the appeal of the 
subject approach appears to be limited since the library survey (appendix 
B) showed that only a small number of libraries actually involved in con¬ 
version were concentrating on specific classes, and that these conversion 


26 



efforts ranged over many subject areas with little duplication. 

2. Special Bibliographies 

In the opinion of several of the consultants interviewed, the 
best return on funds expended for conversion and the greatest utility 
would be attained by converting such published lists as Book for College 
Libraries (BCL) , Books in Print , etc. Procedural problems of getting 
from the lists to the up-to-date LC record are a major deterrent to this 
approach. An effort now in progress to convert BCL for "current retro¬ 
spective" use is reported in appendix C. Putting the catalog records for 
a specific list in machine-readable form is primarily beneficial to users 
who base their acquisitions on the list. Other users seeking machine- 
readable records for specific titles would have to determine whether the 
title appeared in the printed booklist before requesting the record or 
face the likelihood of a large number of unsuccessful searches. 

3. Date 

The consultants agreed that conversion of records produced in 
the last five to ten years should be given first priority. The library 
survey also reported that a majority of libraries actually involved in 
conversion were concentrating on specific time spans, mostly within the 
period of the last ten years. Among libraries contemplating conversion, 
fewer plan to impose time limitations, but when they do, the period i960 
to date predominates. Reverse chronological conversion of the master data 
base is easily accomplished because the LC record set is arranged by 


27 








card-number date and thus falls into manageable groups. 


4. Language 

An overwhelming majority of the consultants favored conversion 
of English language records first. Results of the library study showed 
less than half of the libraries involved in conversion were concentrating 
on specific languages, but, of these, almost all were concentrating on 
English language works. The disadvantage of categorization of records in 
the master data base by language is that it must be done almost entirely 
manually. 

5 • Demand 

Similarities between a service to distribute machine-readable 
data for retrospective records and the present Card Division service 
suggest that it might be reasonable to convert older records on demand. 

In this method, conversion would be stimulated by actual requests from 
other libraries. If the evidence of duplication is valid, this method 
would gradually produce a data base capable of serving a large proportion 
of user needs. It would seem to have the advantages of eliminating unused 
records from the conversion effort and accommodating a range of languages. 

On the other hand, conversion on demand has many disadvantages. 
First, it would sacrifice many of the efficiencies of systematic conver¬ 
sion which allow orderly organization of the work flow. In practice, it 
would lead to the establishment of interior priorities as to which requests 
should be given preference. Otherwise, a strict "first-in-first-out" flow 


28 


could result in the conversion of records in minor foreign languages 
causing serious delay to the conversion in titles in English, Second, and 
most serious, is the fact that the heterogeneous character of the result¬ 
ing data base would make it very difficult to predict whether a given title 
had been converted. Thus, many searches against the machine data base 
would be fruitless. Since the analysis of a hypothetical on-demand service 
(see appendix H) indicates that demand searches would consume costly pro¬ 
cessing time, it would be highly doubtful whether the system could afford 


a high proportion of unsuccessful searches. Systematic conversion by lan¬ 
guage and data overcomes these difficulties to a large extent. In view 
of the coverage of Library of Congress cataloging, there would be a high 
probability of satisfying a request that fell within the scope of a data 
base of, say, English language records since i 960 . 

Finally, as far as the Library of Congress is concerned, the on- 
demand strategy would be of doubtful value in building a data base for 
retrieval since it would have the effect of limiting the coverage to that 
part of the LC collections held by other libraries. 

Despite the disadvantages of on-demand conversion, it might be 
possible to combine this strategy with systematic conversion by language 
and date, if this could be done without too great a reduction in efficient 


processing. This possibility should be explored to meet the anticipated 
| needs of the LC Card.Division. 


D. Priorities 

The conversion of currently produced catalog records did not seem 


29 





originally to be a concern of the present study. It became apparent how¬ 
ever, that the disadvantages of adding to the already heavy load of retro¬ 
spective records made it urgent to move as quickly as time, staff, and the 
state of the art allow toward the goal of conversion of all current cata¬ 
loging to machine-readable form. It was logical also to conclude that no 
effort should be expended on retrospective conversion of any subset of 
the total body of catalog records unless the MARC Distribution Service was 
converting current records in that category. 

For various reasons it is not possible to predict when the 
Library of Congress will be able to convert all of its cataloging output 
on a current basis. To provide benchmarks for estimating the workload of 


conversion of retrospective records, however, the 

following starting times 


were used for each major category: 


Category 

Beginning date 

Romance and German languages 

July 1970 

Other roman alphabet languages 

July 1971 

Nonbook materials 

July 1971 

Slavic languages 

July 1972 

Other nonroman alphabet languages 

July 1973 


The beginning dates were staggered in the expectation that the expansion 
of the MARC Distribution Service would be phased to allow an orderly 
buildup of staff. The schedule also allows time for the resolution of 
conversion problems such as processing nonroman languages. It should be 
kept in mind that these dates were established for purposes of calculation 


30 




in the RECON study. They do not represent operational decisions by the 
Library of Congress. Appendix D gives detailed tables of the workloads 
for retrospective records and anticipated cataloging production through 
June 1976. 

On the assumption that the Library of Congress may be able to 
initiate conversion of current cataloging for the various categories 
according to this schedule, the following groups of retrospective records 
might be considered for conversion. 



Category 

Time span 

Number of records 

1 . 

English language 

1960-March 1969 

586,000 

2 . 

Romance and German 
languages 

I960-June 1970 

581,000 

3- 

English language 

1898-1959 

1 , 728,000 

4. 

Other roman alphabet 
languages 

1960-June 1971 

157,000 


Nonbook materials 

1960-June 1971 

157,000 

5- 

Slavic languages 

1960-June 1972 

225,000 

6 . 

Other nonroman alphabet 
languages 

1960-June 1973 

256,000 

7- 

Romance and German 
languages 

1898-1959 

698,000 

8 . 

All remaining catalog 
records 

1898-1959 

682,000 


It is recommended that first priority be 

given to conversion of 

English language monographic 

records back to i 960 . 

The evidence of this 


report shows overwhelmingly that these records will satisfy the largest 
proportion of the needs of prospective users. Second priority should be 


31 








given to conversion of Romance and German language records back to i 960 
because they serve an identifiable need in academic and research libraries. 
The third priority should be accorded to English language records back to 
1898 (the earliest LC printed cards). Completion of this phase of the 
conversion effort would provide a complete span of readily definable cata¬ 
log records from which all types of libraries could build data bases that 
should satisfy the vast preponderance of requests for information retriev¬ 
al. While it must be acknowledged that all of these categories include 
records of questionable interest and utility,, it was felt that the high 
cost of identifying these marginal records would largely offset any savings 
to be realized by eliminating them from the conversion effort. 

When records in the first three priorities have been converted, 
further steps should be considered in the light of user needs and tech¬ 
nological capabilities at the time. It did not seem realistic within the 
constraints of the present study to assign absolute priorities to the 
remaining categories. Defining and quantifying them, however, provides 
a foundation for further study and consideration. 

E. Strategy for Conversion 

In summary, monograph records from the Official Catalog are 
recommended as the master data base. This data base would best be created 
in a two-step process by converting the LC record set and subsequently 
updating the record from the Official Catalog. 

Since the record set is an active working file for the Card 
Division, it cannot be used directly as input for conversion. The 


32 



essential features of the proposed approach would involve sorting the 
record set into categories of conversion priority. The groups of records, 
once microfilmed, would be reconstituted into the original record set. 

The microfilm data would be converted according to priority, and the 
results of the conversion would be matched against the corresponding 
records in the Official Catalog. When appropriate, the converted records 
would be revised to correspond to additions or changes found in the Offi¬ 
cial Catalog. 

Since libraries now accept records that are not entirely up to 
date when they obtain cards from the Card Division, the question naturally 
arises, "Why can't the machine-readable records be of the same quality?" 
Several answers may be made to this question: 

1. It can hardly be argued that the present limitations on the 
currency of the catalog cards are desirable. 

2. In the present situation a library generally obtains only a 
few older records at a time. When they are merged in its 
catalog, their headings must be reconciled with those already 
present. In the future, if a library is engaged in whole¬ 
sale conversion to machine-readable catalog records, it may 
be able to accept Library of Congress headings without 
change provided they are consistent and up to date. 

3 . Even if other libraries were willing to accept uncorrected 
records, it would be inconceivable that the Library of 
Congress would accept a machine-readable data base of lower 


33 





quality than the Official Catalog. Since the records would 
have to "be updated for that purpose, it seems reasonable to 
allow all potential users to share the benefits. 

4. Any consideration of using the products of a retrospective 
conversion project as a basis for a national bibliographic 
store necessarily depends on the records being of the high¬ 
est quality obtainable. 

In this connection, it should be noted that the conversion pro¬ 
ject would not result in static records. These records would be subject 
to change at the same rate (approximately one percent of the total data 
base each year) as now occurs in the LC Official Catalog. Therefore, the 
value and integrity of the data base could be preserved only by making 
these changes when they became known. Any other course would lead to the 
gradual obsolescence of the file. 

F. Considerations Regarding a National Data Store 

One further possibility, which must be outlined even though it 
remains imprecise and hypothetical at present, is the accumulation and 
use of machine-readable bibliographic records in a national data store 
analogous to the National Union Catalog. It would provide a repository 
for converted titles from all libraries as well as a record of their 
holdings. 

The arguments for implementation of this concept are basically 
the same as those which led to the creation of the National Union Catalog 
and its eventual publication in book form. The arguments are enhanced for 

3 ^ 



a machine-readable data base by the increased ease in manipulation and 
speed in transmission of information which such a system may offer. 

The proposal of such a scheme adds a whole new set of problems 
to those already present in plans for retrospective conversion of the 
bibliographic records of the Library of Congress. To begin with, the 
question of centralized versus decentralized conversion and reporting 
reappears in a new guise. The National Union Catalog, with records of 
holdings, already exists. If the records in this catalog were to be con¬ 
verted along with information about titles held by specific libraries, a 
number of decisions would have to be made on accepting or revising known 
types of inaccurate, incomplete, and obsolete data, as well as data known 
to be missing. These include (l) withdrawn items for which no notification 
has been given NUC, (2) holdings unreported because they belonged to a 
library not participating at a given period of time, or because of the 
limited number of holdings accepted from a given geographic region by NUC, 
and ( 3 ) incomplete or inconsistent bibliographical data reported for the 
same item by different libraries with regard to choice of entry, form 
of heading, use and application of subject headings, and the like. The 
resolution of these problems would constitute an enormous task. The 
alternative of converting the data in the National Union Catalog exactly 
as it stands, although perhaps easier to execute, would lead to a product 
of considerably lesser utility. 

Another alternative is based on the conversion of one of the 
data bases described in this report. Once the basic store of data was 


55 



converted, whether it he the Official Catalog of the Library of Congress, 
the full record set in the LC Card Division, or a block of records such 
as all English language titles cataloged during the past ten years, other 
libraries engaged in the process of converting local holdings might par¬ 
ticipate in a national plan for reporting converted records to incorporate 
them with the basic store. A fundamental requirement of any such plan 
would be adherence by reporting libraries to at least minimal standards 
prescribing (l) content of any particular bibliographic record reported, 
and (2) content designators for those data elements reported. A proto¬ 
type of a minimal record appears in appendix F as level 3* 

A number of implications follow from dependence on a reporting 
plan alone in contrast to conversion of the National Union Catalog. By 
definition, the plan would be limited to only those libraries with the 
capability of converting bibliographic data. During the next few years, 
it is unlikely that a large number of libraries will have this capability. 
Indeed, it is to be expected that a number of smaller libraries with 
significant research collections in special fields will not be in a 
position to convert bibliographic data for many years. This procedure 
for adding local holdings to the national data store would thus depend on 
a factor almost completely unrelated to potential utility; that is, the 
development and implementation of automated bibliographic systems and the 
adoption of reporting procedures at particular libraries throughout the 
country. Reliance upon local reporting would not guarantee that the 
national data store truly or even significantly reflected the bibliographic 


36 


holdings of the library community. It will be necessary, therefore, to 
find other means for obtaining up-to-date information about the holdings of 
libraries to be represented in the national data base. 

A national bibliographic data store should naturally incorporate 
currently cataloged titles. This is a corollary to the extension of the 
MARC Distribution Service as soon as possible to all current Library of 
Congress cataloging data to prevent the further accretion of "retrospective" 
bibliographic information not in machine-readable form. Any plan to create 
a computerized NUC should include procedures for adding to currently 
produced MARC records the locations reported to the National Union Catalog 
by libraries throughout the country. While the actual addition of locations 
in machine-readable form involves few theoretical problems, the timing 
raises considerations that will need careful attention if this information 
is to be distributed to regional centers. 

The MARC Distribution Service exists to distribute cataloging 
information that will facilitate the organization of current library 
acquisitions. Speedy execution of this task is essential to its success. 

It follows then that the service cannot also be the vehicle for distribut¬ 
ing information about libraries that hold titles included on the current 
tapes because this information is usually not available for many months 
after the item has been cataloged by the Library of Congress. Some other 
means must be found to distribute holdings information to those regional 
centers that may be involved in the creation of union catalogs of machine- 
readable data. 


37 






Even more difficult will be the establishment of ground rules 
for the reporting by local libraries of titles which, when cataloged 
locally, have not been acquired by LC and/or included in MARC. Will the 
title be acquired by LC? Will it be included in MARC? How will matching 
of machine-readable reports be done in the central file if conflicting 
data are reported by two or more libraries? 

The present report will not present either a detailed scheme for 
creation of a national bibliographic data store with holdings, nor a cost 
estimate for the accomplishment of this task. To provide this information 
would require a study complementary to the present one and of the same or 
greater magnitude. Such a study would be premature before some of the 
proposals and recommendations outlined in the present report have been 
acted upon. If conversion of retrospective bibliographic data becomes a 
reality, however, its fullest benefits will be realized only if information 
giving nationwide holdings is made available through conveniently accessed 
means. 


58 


Chapter 5 

TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES: MACHINE CONSIDERATIONS 
A. Basic Assumptions 

1. Introduction 

Chapters 5 and 6 deal with the machine and manpower considera¬ 
tions of the technical alternative si/ that were analyzed during the course 
of the study. Many of the concepts and assumptions discussed in both 
chapters are described in detail in the appendixes. Chapters 5 and 6 are 
highly interdependent and, in addition, they assume that the reader is 
familiar with certain concepts, terminology, and basic assumptions. 

It is necessary, therefore, to define these terms and assump* 
tions (l) to avoid duplication of definitions in chapters 5 and 6, (2) to 

T. In this study the term "technical alternative" embraces all facets of 
the conversion process after the selection of the data base through 
the quality-control step prior to storage. Initially, the data would 
be recorded on magnetic tape. In the operating system the data would 
be in a random-access mass storage device. The term "conversion 
method" is also used to refer to the same process. 

39 


351-845 0 - 69—4 









clarify the contents of the two chapters for the reader without requiring 
him to refer to an appendix to understand terminology, and ( 3 ) to explain 
some of the basic assumptions underlying the technical alternatives. 

2. Staff Complement 

To determine staffing requirements and elapsed time for each 
alternative data base, some hypothetical conversion rates had to be 
assumed. A basic premise of the study was that all aspects of conversion 
should be assessed realistically. Therefore, the size of the staff for 
a given conversion method could not be so large as to make staffing imprac¬ 
tical. The RECON Working Task Force felt that a staff complement of about 
100 people was realistic and it was calculated that approximately this 
many people could implement a conversion effort of 10,000 titles per week 
regardless of the technical alternative chosen. The tables included in 
chapter 6 were constructed on this basis. It should be noted that the 
staff complements in the tables can be used as a base for calculating the 
production of different numbers of people or different rates of production. 
This could be done to increase or decrease the time required to convert 
any particular data base. 

3 . Editing 

The term "editing" has been used rather broadly in this report 
and sometimes encompasses several distinct processes. Actually editing can 
be defined as the process of applying tags, delimiters, and subfield codes 
(content designators) and adding certain fixed field information (language 


40 


code, main entry in body of the entry, imprint date, etc. ) to the record. 
In the analysis of staff requirements for the various technical alterna¬ 
tives, the process of editing includes the original editing, proofing for 
completeness and accuracy, and correcting errors. Although the proofing 
and correction processes occur at a later stage, they are considered part 
of editing since each technical alternative assumes the same people are 
performing all functions (based on MARC I and MARC II procedures). 

The process of editing the record prior to input is called pre¬ 
editing; the process of correcting the record after proofing is called 
post-editing. 

The process of pre-editing can be performed at three different 
levels of completeness: 

Full editing assumes the human editor has assigned all content 
designators and the machine processing does not include a format recog¬ 
nition program (see below). 

Partial editing assumes the human editor has assigned some con¬ 
tent designators and .the machine processing does include a format recog¬ 
nition program that analyzes the record and assigns the remaining content 
designators. The content designators assigned by the human editor in 
partial editing are called cues to the format recognition program. The 
content designators would aid the machine analysis and increase the 
accuracy in the format recognition program. 

No editing assumes that there is no pre-editing process and the 
machine processing includes a format recognition program that assigns 


kl 













all content designators by analyzing the character strings. 

The terminology "full editing, partial editing, and no editing" 
is used when describing editing as a process. When the resulting record 
is being described, the adjectival forms of all three are used: fully 
edited record, partially edited record, and unedited record. 

The post-editing process is always the same. Regardless of the 
types of pre-editing the record has received, post-editing will add or 
change content designators or characters in the bibliographic description 
itself (i.e., misspelling, keying errors, etc.). 

4. Format Recognition 

Format recognition is a function performed by a computer program. 
The function may be defined as the analysis of the data in a machine-read¬ 
able record and the automatic assignment of content designators (tags, 
delimiters, and subfield codes) and coded information (fixed fields) making 
explicit what is implicit in the textual information (language codes, form 
of content, etc.). 

Format recognition is not applicable to fully edited records. 

The term "fully edited" implies that a human editor has already performed 

the function. Partially edited records have received some treatment by a 

human editor. The machine uses the information provided by the editor 

as cues to complete the assignment of content designators and fixed fields. 

Unedited records are input directly into machine-readable form without 

any manual editing and the format recognition program attempts to assign 

all the content designators and fixed fields required. An extended 

42 


treatment of the concept of format recognition appears in appendix G. 

Levels 

The concept of levels of records and its development for this 
study is explained in appendix F. A machine format for recording of 
bibliographic data and the identification of these data for machine manip¬ 
ulation is composed of a basic structure (physical representation), con¬ 
tent designators (tags, delimiters, subfield codes), and contents (data 
elements in fixed and variable fields). Although the basic structure 
should remain constant, the contents and their designation is subject to 
variation. For example, a name entry could be designated merely as a name 
instead of being distinguished as a personal name or corporate name. When 
a distinction is made, a personal name entry can be further refined as a 
single surname, multiple surname, or forename. Likewise, if a personal 
name entry contains date of birth and/or death, relationship to the work 
(editor, compiler, etc.), or title, these data elements can be identified 
or can be treated as part of the name entry without any unique identifi¬ 
cation. Thus individual data elements can be identified at various levels 
of completeness. 

The MARC II format^/ for current cataloging data has been defined 
as level 1. This constitutes the most complete record and assumes that 
the physical book was inspected during conversion. Level 2 has been 

~ 2 . uT~S. Library of Congress. The MARC II format, a communications for¬ 
mat for bibliographic data. Washington, D. C., 1968. 


43 




defined as a MARC II record prepared without consulting the original book. 
This may mean that some data elements may not be supplied. As can readily 
be seen, the gradual elimination of data elements and content designators 
would produce formats at different levels of completeness. Thus, level 
may be defined as the completeness of the record in terms of content and/ 
or content designators. 

B. Description of Possibilities 

After analyzing the alternative data bases (see chapter 4) it 

was necessary to develop several conversion methods so that unit costs/ 

record could be calculated for input equipment and staff requirements for 

each conversion method. The cost of the computer system (including both 

hardware and software) needs to be calculated only once because it is 

unaffected by the choice of the data base or the conversion method. The 

design and implementation costs for the necessary software would remain 

constant regardless of the number of records to be converted. For design 

purposes it was assumed that the computer configuration should process a 

data base of from one to five million records, enough for any of the data 

base alternatives under consideration. The costs of the mass storage 

devices would depend on the number of records converted. Therefore, these 

costs would be affected both by the total number of records converted and 

by time. It would not be necessary to procure the total number of storage 

devices at the onset of the conversion effort. They could be added as the 

data base grows. In the design of the machine configuration (see appendix 

H), both selection of hardware and software specifications were based on the 

44 




time frame 1970-1976 and thus they reflect what is available today. 

Since it was decided that the LC record set (updated from the 
Official Catalog) was the best file for conversion regardless of the data 
base or the conversion method finally recommended, the selection process 
would remain constant for each technical alternative. Therefore, it was 
necessary to compute the costs of selection and the hardware/software con¬ 
figuration only once. Attention was then focused on evaluating the advan¬ 
tages and disadvantages of various conversion methods and determining their 
costs. 


Figure 5*1 illustrates the alternative conversion methods. Each 


lettered alternative (A-j) represents a form of editing (no editing, par¬ 
tial editing, full editing) using a different keying device (for this dis¬ 
cussion, direct-read OCR is classified as a keying device). 



Alternative 


A 


D 

G 

J 


B 

E 

H 


C 

F 

I 


Form of 
pre-editing 


None 

Partial 

Fully 


None 

Partial 

Fully 


None 

Partial 

Fully 



Magnetic tape 
inscriber 


OCR font typewriter 
plus OCR 


Direct-read OCR 


On-line typewriter 


Input device 


3 . The alternative using direct-read OCR does not lend itself to pre 


editing. 


45 










Figure 5.1—Technical alternatives for conversion 
of LC catalog records to machine-readable form 


A 


Selection from 
LC record set; 
microfilming 
making paper 
copy 


Direct- 
read OCR 



Set A 
to 2 or 3 




Key unedited 
records 

(tape inscriber) 


h® 


Key unedited 
records (OCR 
Font typewriter) 


OCR 


“*© 


Key unedited 

records —►( T J 

(on line) 


Partial 

editing 


Key 

(tape inscriber) 



e 


Partial 

editing 


Key 

(OCR font 
typewriter) 


OCR 


Partial 

editing 


Key 

(on line) 




Full 

editing 


Key 

(tape inscriber) 



fi 


Full 

editing 


Key 

(OCR Font 
Typewriter) 


OCR 


Full 

editing 


Key 

(on line) 


“*© 


Set A 
to 2 or 3 


-© 



Set A 
to 1 or 4 


-@ 


OPTIONS 


@ 


IT 

Tw 

- 3* - 


4 > 

a.. Print for proofing 

a. Format recognition 

a. Format recognition 

a. 

Sort by main entry/ 

b. Proof for reliability 

b. Print for proofing 

b. Sort by main entry/ 


title 

of input device and 

c. Proof for reliability 

title 

b. 

Print for proofing and 

keying errors (where 

of input device. 

c. Print for proofing and 


catalog comparison 

applicable) 

keying errors (where 

catalog comparison 

c. 

Compare printout with 

c. Correct data base 

applicable) and format 

d. Compare printout with 


catalog and update (if 


recognition 

catalog and update (if 


necessary) 


d. Correct data base 

necessary) 

d. 

Proof for reliability of 



e. Proof for reliability of 


input device and keying 



input device, keying 


errors 



errors (where applica- 

e. 

Correct and update 



ble) and format recog¬ 
nition 


data base 



f. Correct and update 





data base 




46 































































In addition to the major breakdown of A-J, there is a secondary 
division categorized as 1-4. 

The secondary divisions 1-4 cover procedures that might be fol¬ 
lowed after the data were on magnetic tape as a result of the A-J con¬ 
version methods. ^ The following section elaborates the details of the 
secondary divisions 1-4: 

1: The magnetic tape records are printed for proofing against 
a source document for the reliability of the input device (machine errors) 
and keying errors (when a keying device is used), and the records then are 
corrected, keyed, and input to correct the machine-readable data base. 

Since the records are not processed by a format recognition program, the 
quality of the resulting record would depend on the type of pre-editing 
the record had received. For example, if partial editing was performed, 
the resulting record would be in a format somewhat less complete than 
level 2 (see appendix F). If full editing was performed, the resulting 
record would be in a level 2 format. If the record was unedited, the 
resulting magnetic tape record would be a character string without any 
explicit identification. 

2: The magnetic tape record is processed by a format recognition 
program and the record is printed for proofing for reliability of the in¬ 
put devices, keying errors where a keying device was used, and reliability 
of the format recognition program. Corrections are made, keyed and input 
to correct the machine-readable data base. The records are not compared 
against the Official Catalog. Again, it must be borne in mind that the 


success of the format recognition program depends on the amount of editing 
performed. The performance of the format recognition program directly 
affects the number of corrections that will have to be made and conse¬ 
quently the number of records that will be recycled during the conversion 
process. 

3 : The magnetic tape record is processed by a format recognition 
program. The file is sorted by 10 characters of the main entry .^ The 
records are printed, compared against the entry in the Official Catalog, 
and updated, if necessary. The records are proofed for reliability of the 
input device, keying where a keying device was used, and for reliability 
of the format recognition program. Corrections are made to the record 
and both the corrections and changes from the comparison with the Official 
Catalog are keyed and the machine-readable data base corrected and updated. 

4 : The file is sorted by 10 characters of the main entry. The 
records are printed, compared against the entry in the Official Catalog, 
and updated, if necessary. The records are proofed for reliability of 
the input device and keying errors. Corrections are made to the record 
and both the corrections and the changes from the comparison with the 

FI The source data were originally taken from the LC Card Division record 
set. This file is in chronological order by year and within year by 
sequential number (LC card number). It is necessary, therefore, to 
sort the file by main entry to facilitate comparison with the Official 
Catalog. 


48 





Official Catalog are keyed and the machine-readable base corrected and 
jupdated. 

Although there are 40 combinations of the 10 major conversion 
methods (A-J) and the four secondary options (l-4), figure 5*1 presents 
only the 20 possibilities that seemed realistic. In the group A-D, options 
1 and 4 were excluded because a record without any editing or format 
recognition would be an undifferentiated character string of bibliographic 
information. Partially edited records require format recognition to bring 
them up to level 2. Therefore, options 1 and 4 were excluded from E-G. 
Because it would be redundant to apply format recognition to records that 
were fully edited prior to input, options 2 and 3 were excluded from H-J. 
Figure 5*1 lists the remaining possibilities: A2, A3, B2, B3, C2, C3> D2, 
D3, E2, E3, F2, F3, G2, G3, HI, H4, II, 14, Jl, and J4. In the subsequent 
analysis of these 20 conversion methods they are referred to by this 
terminology. 

C. Input Devices 

During the initial phases of the study, several input devices 
were considered and, for a variety of reasons discussed below, several 
devices were excluded from the technical alternatives. The decisions 
made in this phase were made on technical grounds only, not on a compar¬ 
ison of cost. 

1. Keyboard to Card (Keypunch) 

The lack of hard copy for verification as a result of punching, 


49 





the limitation of the character set on the keyboard, and the limitation of 
the 80-column card for punching variable-length bibliographic data were 
considered to be serious drawbacks and this method was excluded. 

2. Keyboard to Paper Tape (Paper Tape Typewriter) 

This device does produce hard copy as a byproduct of punching 
and has a keyboard with a larger character set than a keypunch machine. 

The mechanical punching mechanism often produces errors, however, and 
the handling of punched paper tape presents a logistic problem. Since 
the newer devices (e.g., magnetic tape inscribers) are basically the same 
type of device without the two limitations (mechanical punching errors and 
paper tape handling), the paper tape typewriter was excluded. 

3 . Keyboard to Magnetic Tape (Magnetic Tape Inscriber) 

Magnetic tape inscribers are of two types: keypunch to magnetic 
tape and typewriter to magnetic tape. The resulting magnetic tape is 
computer-compatible tape in some instances and in others requires a con¬ 
verter to translate from the inscriber output tape to the computer input 
tape. 

Although a keypunch-to-magnetic-tape device affords flexibility 
in error correction and verification and the output is magnetic tape 
instead of paper tape, the keypunch has the same limitations described in 
1 above and consequently the keypunch-to-magnetic-tape device was excluded. 

A typewriter-to-magnetic-tape device has all the advantages of 
the paper tape typewriter: hard-copy output, a larger character set than 


50 


the keypunch, free-form input for variable-length data without the asso¬ 
ciated disadvantages of paper tape output and a mechanical punching unit. 
Therefore, typewriter-to-magnetic-tape was retained as a possible con¬ 
version method for further analysis. 

k. On-line Keyboarding (Typewriter) 

This device has the same advantages as any other device using a 
typewriter for input plus the additional feature of not requiring any 
interim medium such as paper tape, or non-computer-compatible magnetic 
tape prior to final residence on the system’s magnetic tape. Therefore, 
on-line keyboarding via a typewriter was retained as a possible technical 
alternative. 

5. Typing for an Optical Character Reader (Typing and Scanning) 

There are several optical character readers commercially availa¬ 
ble on the market today that require the use of a typewriter equipped with 
a special font (shape and form of character produced by the typewriter) 
and a pin feed for better alignment so the hard copy produced is not 
skewed causing errors during the OCR read time. The data are typed on a 
data sheet which is fed through the reader. Each character is inter¬ 
preted, digitized, and recorded on magnetic tape under program control. 

The types of OCR can be characterized as follows: 

(l) Devices that can read only a stylized uppercase type font 
where the typist is required to use special characters 
to indicate upper- and lowercase, punctuation other than 


51 




commas, periods, etc. This limitation causes a decrease in 
typing speed when the source data are as complex as a biblio¬ 
graphic description. 

(2) Devices that are capable of reading upper- and lowercase with 
extended punctuation. 

( 3 ) Devices that are not programmable (minimum program capability 
wired into the device) and very limited in formatting capa¬ 
bility. 

(4) Devices that are programmable and are much more flexible in 
formatting capability. 

These characteristics were analyzed and only devices satisfying 
points 2 and 4 were retained for consideration. Since the typewriter for 
OCR has the same advantages as the typewriter for all other conversion 
methods discussed above, typing for an optical character reader was 
retained as a possible technical alternative. 

6 . Direct-Read OCR 

Direct-read OCR in the context of this study is defined as 
directly converting the LC Card Division record set into machine-readable 
form without any intermediate keying devices. 

A detailed study performed for the Library of Congress concluded 
that there is no OCR equipment available today that can directly convert 
the LC Card Division record set. The principal problems involved with the 
present equipment are the requirements to be able to read (l) proportional 
spacing, ( 2 ) non-standard fonts, ( 3 ) special characters including 


52 


diacritics, and (4) 3" x 5" cards. 

Several manufacturers are developing equipment that looks prom¬ 
ising at least for portions of the record set. One manufacturer believes 
that his equipment would be available by late 1969 or early 1970. The 
state of the art should be monitored continually to determine where and 
when breakthroughs are likely to appear. 

The lack of a commercially available direct-read OCR capable of 
handling the retrospective records makes it risky to depend on this method 
for large-scale conversion. Since, in all probability, developments by 
manufacturers will be geared to the largest market, it is unwise to 
anticipate the solution of problems that are beyond present technical 
capabilities. 

Even when an OCR device is available, it will not have the 
capability to read every character that it may encounter in a record. Two 
machines that may be available in the foreseeable future require microfilm 
input. If the quality of the reproduction is poor, the device will be 
unable to interpret even English letter’s. In addition, the device will 
be limited in the number of different characters that it can recognize. 

It will not be able to read nonroman characters, diacritical marks, mathe¬ 
matical symbols, and other special characters. 

To safeguard against digitizing of records with a large number 
of unread characters, it should be possible to establish a threshhold of 
the tolerable number of unread characters. If that number were exceeded, 
the OCR device would reject the record and delete whatever parts it had 


53 




already read- It has been estimated that, even if the records were pre¬ 
selected so as to maximize the capability of the OCR device, as many as 
10 percent would be rejected as unreadable. This figure was taken as the 
basis for calculating the keyboarding effort required to input these 
records in the alternative using a direct-read OCR device. 

A recent article^/ by a staff member of one of the OCR manufac¬ 
turers includes the following statements that are directly applicable to 
the RECON study: 

First, what they record ... By 1975 > most OCR applications 
will involve reading some alphabetic information. There will be 
a major trend away from the current practice of using retyping 
and OCR as a conversion method. The move will be to direct read¬ 
ing, which provides the ultimate payoff from OCR. The truly 
multifont application will be commonplace. 

Second, how well they read ... This is now and will con¬ 
tinue to be the most important question to be answered in eval¬ 
uating reading machines. Improvements will be made in readers 
and in input preparation devices, but many input documents will 
still be prepared by humans in uncontrolled environments, and 
the cost of correcting mistakes that get into a computer and of 
manually handling rejected documents will rise continuously. 

Third, how they read ... By 1975 > there will be an increased 
demand for broad flexibility in input formats accepted, and opti¬ 
cal readers will have to be capable of performing a substantial 
amount of on-line computing as a byproduct of the input process. 

Chapter 4 discusses the conversion of the LC Card Division record 

set over a period of years on a priority basis. Because significant 

advances in the OCR technology can be expected in the 1970's, it is worth 

considering direct-read OCR as a conversion method for some set of the 


5. Fhilipson, Herman L., Jr. Optical character readers to play more 

important role in 197°’s. Computerworld, v. 3, February 5, 1969, 4-5. 

54 



eight data base alternatives identified. In converting a large data base, 
many techniques should be considered and no limitation need be placed on 
the variety employed if a combination of techniques reduces costs. In 
view of these considerations, direct-read OCR was retained as a possible 
input device because it might be useful for conversion of some part of the 
data base that remained to be converted when a practicable OCR capability 
was developed. 

7. Summary 

The input devices considered in the analysis of the unit cost per 
record for various technical alternatives were (l) direct-read OCR, ( 2 ) mag¬ 
netic tape inscriber (typewriter), ( 3 ) OCR font typewriter followed by OCR, 
and (4) on-line typewriter. 

D. Input Costs 

1. General Considerations 

The unit cost/record figures for the input devices described 
above were calculated for the transcription of three types of records, each 
receiving different treatment prior to input; i.e., no editing, partial 
editing, and full editing. The effect of the three kinds of editing is 
a difference in (l) total number of characters to be input and (2) com¬ 
plexity of the record to be input. Complexity is measured by the number 
of content designators (tags, indicators, subfield codes), and the inher¬ 
ent nature of the data itself (for a full discussion of this point, see 
chapter 6). 

55 


351-845 0-69—5 



Since this study is concerned with records in many languages, 
allowance was made for a reduced rate of production on input devices 
using a standard typewriter keyboard because of the complexity of the data. 
Although there may actually be differences in the keystroke rates for tape 
inscriber, typewriter with OCR font, and on-line typewriters, they are too 
slight at this degree of complexity to warrant calculating the separate 
rates. Therefore, in this study, a uniform rate of 6,600 characters per 
hour was used for all devices. 

Another factor that enters into the calculation of unit cost 
estimates is the number of characters per record to be input. Based on 
a statistical study of a random sample of the LC Card Division record set 
and a count made of the number of characters per record on the MARC II 
test tape (which includes tags, delimiters, etc. ) the following assump¬ 
tions were made about an average number of characters per record: 

Unedited record 325 characters 

Partially edited record 412 characters 

Fully edited record 500 characters 

The character count for a partially edited record was derived 
by interpolation between the counts for an unedited record and a fully 
edited record. 

The cost of any equipment that an operator uses must take into 
account the fact that the equipment is not being used for eight working 
hours a day. Chapter 6 states that all production rates for people were 
estimated on the basis of an effective working day of six hours. 


56 


Therefore, the cost of equipment must be adjusted by an actual utilization 
factor; in this case 75 percent. All equipment costs were based on a one- 
shift operation or 176 hours per month. 

Some input devices require associated equipment involving a 
fixed cost that must be prorated over the number of devices actually used. 

To simplify the calculation of the per-record cost of this associated 
equipment, whenever an alternative required such a configuration it was 
assumed that 20 input devices were being used. This assumption was based 
on an evaluation of the manpower requirements for input discussed in the 
next chapter. In a few instances, the assumption has the effect of making 
the per-record cost of the associated equipment different than it would 
actually be under operating conditions because the technical alternative 
requires a larger or smaller number of devices. 

2. Cost of Equipment 

The cost per hour of the equipment for each conversion method is 
constant regardless of whether the input consists of unedited, partially 
edited, or fully edited records. In the case of the OCR scanner, however, 
it was necessary to take, these differences into account because of the 
reading rate of the device. 

a. Direct-read OCR 

Since there is no commercially available OCR capable of directly 
reading the Library of Congress printed card, the prices used for cost com¬ 
parison are based on expected price and rental figures given by the only 


57 



manufacturer willing to quote a firm price at this time. Read time is 
also based on projected figures by the developers of the equipment. The 
quoted rental price was $600 per hour. The projected read time is approx¬ 
imately one card per second or 3,600 records per hour. Therefore, the 
cost for direct-read OCR is $.167 per record. The cost of the direct-read 
OCR device on a service bureau basis is assumed to be $600 per hour. 

b. Magnetic tape inscriber (typewriter) 

Monthly rental $100.00 

Hourly cost (based on 176 hours 
per month adjusted for 75 percent 

utilization factor) .757/hour 

Cost of converter—monthly rental 260.00 

Amortization over 20 tape inscribers I3.OO 

Hourly cost (based on 176 hours per month) .07^ 

Total cost of tape inscriber .831/hour 

c. OCR font typewriter 

Purchase price 500.00 

40-month amortization 12.50/month 

Hourly cost (based on 176 hours per month 
adjusted for 75 percent utilization 
factor) .095/hour 

d. OCR scanner 

The rental price of an OCR scanner capable of the performance 
in C5 is approximately $16,000 per month. The capacity of the scanner is 
about 600 documents/hour. The optimum size for a document for one manu¬ 
facturer's device is 8-1/2" x lV. A sheet of paper of this size can 
accommodate 37 double spaced lines of 75 characters each. The number of 
records that can be typed on a sheet is a function of the number of 
characters in the record. The number of characters in the record is a 


function of the type of pre-editing the record has received. Since it was 

58 





assumed that all 75 character positions in each line would be used, three 
blank lines were added to allow space for corrections made during input. 
The following calculations were made: 

(1) Unedited records (325 characters/record): 

5 lines 4-3 = 8 lines/record or 4 records/page 
or 2,400 records/hour. 

(2) Partially edited records (4l2 characters/record): 

6 lines* 3 = 9 lines/record or 4 records/page 
or 2,400 records/hour^/ 

(3) Fully edited records (500 characters/record): 

7 lines* 3 =10 lines/record or 3 records/page 
or 1,800 records/hour. 

In view of the relatively low volume of input, it would not be 
economical to rent an OCR scanner. Therefore, a service bureau rental 
of $200 per hour was used to compute the cost of this device on a per- 
record basis for each type of record: 

Unedited records $.083/record 

Partially edited records .083/record 

Fully edited records .lll/record 

e. On-line typewriter 

The hardware/so ft ware configuration described in appendix H with 

FI Since, ordinarily, only complete records would be allowed on a page, 
the difference between 8 lines/record and 9 lines/record disappears in 
this computation. 


59 







multiprogramming capability would require at least 128 k bytes of core 
storage. Assuming the memory capacity for servicing 20 on-line typewriter 
terminals plus the monitor system necessary for time-sharing, another 128 k 
bytes of core storage would be required. This latter 128 k storage plus a 
selector channel, storage protect, and a 2311-type disk would be dedicated 
to the on-line system and must be prorated across the number of terminals. 
Costs for these devices have been estimated as follows: 


128k memory module 
Selector channel 
Storage protect 
Disk 


Total 


Cost prorated by terminal 
On-line typewriter terminal 
Timing adapter 
Line adapter 

Total 

Hourly cost (based on 176 
hours per month adjusted 
for 75 percent utilization 
factor) 


$6,590/month 
360/month 
155/month 
590/month 

$7,695/month for 20 
on-line terminals 

$385/month 
82/month 
23/month 
3/month 

$493/month 


$3•73/bour 


3. Cost Per Record 

The cost per record for an input device is calculated by dividing 
the cost of the equipment per hour by the hourly production rate. 


60 




a. An unedited record has 325 characters. At 6,600 strokes per 


hour, an operator will produce 20.3 records per hour. 


Cost/record for OCR typewriter 

$.095 - 
20.3 

$.005 

Cost/record for OCR 

Total 

.083 

.088 

Cost/record for tape inscriber 

.831 = 
20.3 

.041 

Cost/record for on-line typewriter 

IzZL = 
20.3 

.184 

Cost/record for direct-read OCR 


.167 


b. A partially edited record has 412 characters. At 6,600 
strokes per hour, an operator will produce l6.0 records per hour. 


Cost/record for OCR typewriter 

Olvn 

II 

$.006 

Cost/record for OCR 


.083 


Total 

.089 

Cost/record for tape inscriber 

4 2i = 

16.0 

.051 

Cost/record for on-line typewriter 

Ml , 
TE 7 o 

•233 


c. A fully edited record has 500 characters. At 6,600 strokes 
per hour, an operator will produce 13*2 records per hour. 


Cost/record for OCR typewriter 

.095 = 
13*2 

$.007 

Cost/record for OCR 


.111 

Total 

.118 

Cost/record for tape inscriber 

.831 - 
13.2 

.063 

Cost/record for on-line typewriter 

U1 = 
13.2 

.283 


6l 






4. Summary of Input Costs Per Record 

The 20 conversion methods were analyzed for the cost of the 
input devices and the product of each method. The cost per record for 
each type of input device by major division (A-J) may be summarized as 
follows: 

Method and device Cost per record 

A Direct-read OCR $.167 

B Unedited; tape inscriber .041 

C Unedited; OCR font typewriter 

plus OCR • 088 

D Unedited; on-line typewriter .184 

E Partially edited; tape inscriber • 051 

F Partially edited; OCR font typewriter 

plus OCR .089 

G Partially edited; on-line typewriter .233 

H Fully edited; tape inscriber .063 

I Fully edited; OCR font typewriter 

plus OCR . 118 

J Fully edited; on-line typewriter .283 

All conversion methods using the OCR font typewriter plus an 
OCR and the on-line typewriter had a higher unit cost. Therefore, C, D, 
F, G, I, and J were eliminated from any further consideration in the 
main body of the report. They are included in table 1.2 of appendix I 
where man-machine costs are given for all 20 technical alternatives. 

The remaining eight technical alternatives provide the means 
of making a comparison among the costs of the following basic methods: 


62 






Technical Alternative 

Input Device 

Form of Ere-Editing 

A2 and 3 

Direct-read OCR 

None 

B2 and 3 

Magnetic tape 
inscriber 

None 

E2 and 3 

Magnetic tape 
inscriber 

Partial 

HI and 4 

Magnetic tape 
inscriber 

Full 


E. Format Recognition 

All major divisions A-J that have the associated secondary divi¬ 
sion 2 or 3 require processing ty a format recognition program. In some 
instances the program would operate on partially edited records; in others, 
it would process unedited records. 

The estimates made in appendix H for processing times for vari¬ 
ous alternatives were based on MARC II experience operating on fully 
edited records. The present programs at the Library of Congress (Pre-edit, 
Format Edit, and Content Edit) that process MARC II records use approxi¬ 
mately three seconds/record for these functions. The processing of a 
partially edited record by a format recognition program adds some complex¬ 
ity to the present MARC II system but also duplicates part of the functions 
performed. Therefore, it was judged that the same amount of machine time 
(three seconds) would be required to process partially edited records as 
required to process fully edited records. The format recognition program 
for unedited records will be more complex than the program for partially 
edited records. An exact measure of how much more complex cannot be made 


65 













without designing, writing, and timing both programs. 

An approximation of complexity equated to machine running time 
was made and four seconds was allocated to format recognition processing 
applied to unedited records. 

Therefore, an additional unit cost per record must be added to 
those technical alternatives that process unedited records. With a 
machine configuration having a rental cost of for 176 hours of 

prime time, the cost per hour of the configuration equals $170. Assuming 
that format recognition takes an additional second of machine time to 
process an unedited record as compared to a partially edited record, the 
cost is $.047 per record. 

It should be stressed that these time estimates are based on 
LC experience on a 360/40 DOS system not operating in a multiprogramming 
environment. They are subject to adjustment by more exacting timing 
estimates as well as variation in the equipment. 

F. Sorting and Printing Costs 

1. Sorting 

All technical alternatives described in this chapter require 
sorting records by LC card number and a printout for proofing. Since the 
sort by card number applies across the board, the cost of this sorting has 
been absorbed in the cost of the hardware configuration. Any technical 
alternative that involves catalog comparison would also require that the 
records be sorted by 10 characters of the main entry to facilitate 


64 



comparison of the record input from the LC card set (LC card number 
sequence with year) with the Official Catalog (alphabetic sequence). 

Assuming only the new records per day would be sorted alphabet¬ 
ically and there were 2,000 such records per day, the sort time would be 
six minutes (see appendix H). If the machine configuration has a rental 
cost of $30,000 for 176 hours of prime time, the cost per hour of the 
machine configuration equals $170. Therefore, the cost of sorting 2,000 
records in six minutes equals $17 or $.009 per record. 

2. Printing 

Printing costs have been calculated on a per-record basis for 
all technical alternatives assuming printing would be performed in a 
time-shared environment. The number of lines printed per minute influ¬ 
ences the cost of printing. The estimate for this report was based upon 
experience at the Library of Congress in printing proof sheets (diagnos¬ 
tics in a format designed especially for proofing). The average speed has 
been approximately 420 lines per minute. Assuming that 2,000 records were 
in the system, a total of 48,000 lines would be printed each dayZ/. At a 
rental price of $30,000 per month for the machine configuration for 176 
hours of prime time, the cost per hour of the machine configuration 
equals $170. At 420 lines per minute for 48,000 lines, the print time 

T- This is based on estimates of 24 lines per record (12 character string 
lines and 12 white lines; i.e., double spaced). A change in this 
figure will change the cost per record but not cost per line. 

65 



would be approximately 114 minutes or 1.9 hours. Therefore, the cost of 
printing 2,000 records would be $323 (l*9 hours x $170/hour) or $.162 
per record. 

The machine configuration described in appendix H assumes a 
multiprogramming environment. Therefore, the cost of the machine con¬ 
figuration would be shared between the printing operations and some other 
processing being performed simultaneously. It is impossible to predict 
what program might be running during print time, and to distribute costs 
between the print operation and the running program. Therefore, the 
cost of printing assumes a figure of an hourly cost of $30* The cost of 
printing 2,000 records, therefore, would be $57 (l-9 hours x $30/hour) 
or $.029 per record. 

The costs of the technical alternatives that require comparison 
with the Official Catalog must be adjusted to show an additional printing 
cost. The printout of the records sorted alphabetically would be used as 
a medium for recording changes on records that have been made only in the 
Official Catalog record. In addition, each printed record would have to 
be compared with the hard copy produced after microfilming the record set 
to proof the machine-readable record. This comparison must be made in LC 
card number order, the sequence of the source data from the record set file. 

A special printing technique could be used to reduce manual 
effort in matching these two files. It is possible to print two records 
side by side on computer paper 13-1/2 inches wide. In this format a 
printed record would require approximately 10 percent more lines than are 


66 


needed for printing a single record. The tape containing the daily input 
• of records in LC card number order would be re-sorted into alphabetic 
sequence on main entry resulting in two tapes, one in LC card number order 
and the other roughly in main entry order. 

Half of the print buffer would be loaded with characters from a 
record from the alpha tape and the other half with characters from a 
record from the LC card number tape. The resulting printout would have 
the identical number of records printed two up in both sorts. The listing 
would be cut in half. The alphabetic listing would be used for the 
Official Catalog comparison and since it is expected that on the average 
only 20 percent of the records will require change, approximately 400 out 
of 2,000 will be modified. Each record in the alphabetic listing has an 
associated LC catalog card number and the changed records would be used 
to replace the identical record in the LC catalog card number printout. 

The LC catalog card number printout would then be used for proofing the 
source data which is also in LC card number order. 

The print time and cost computed above must be modified for the 
two-up print. The assumption of 10 percent more lines per record printed 
raises the estimate of the total number of lines printed per record to 
27 lines. Therefore, 2,000 new records per day would result in 54,000 
lines printed each day. At a rental price of $30,000 per month for the 
machine configuration for 176 hours of print time, the cost per hour of 
the machine configuration equals $170. At 420 lines per minute for 54,000 
lines, the print time will be approximately 128.5 minutes of 2.l4 hours. 


67 






Therefore, the cost of printing 2,000 records two-up will be $364 (2.14 
hours x $170/hour) or $.182 per record. 

The cost of printing 2,000 records in a time-shared environment 
assuming an hourly machine cost of $30 will be $64 (2.14 hours x $30/hour) 
or $.032 per record. 

G. Computer Configuration Costs 

1. Introduction 

The detailed requirements for a computer system large enough to 
process and hold a large centralized bibliographic data store are described 
in appendix H. The costs of this system are considered here. Ideally, 
if the configuration and the cost were a linear function of file size or 
processing volume, the system could start small and grow as the numbers 
of records processed required. In practical terms, however, the final 
size of the file must be considered and a system capable of expanding to 
that size must be predicted at the start. 

2. Influence of Storage Capacity 

The analysis assumes a data store that will ultimately hold a 
collection of one million to five million records. These records are 
assumed to average 500 characters in length, and they require, in addition, 
overhead storage for directories to locate the records. This overhead 
data will occupy a minimum of 10 to 15 percent of the main file. 

As shown below, the approximate cost of a system capable of 

storing and operating on a store of one million records is approximately 

68 



$45,000 per month for one shift; or considering the storage function only, 
about $.045 per record per month. These estimates do not include data 
preparation equipment. 

To store half the number of records, with a degradation in sys¬ 
tem performance because of reduced access speed, the Bryant disk alone 
could be used for both record storage and record location information 
(directories) eliminating the faster disk pack. This would reduce the 
cost only by 10 or 12 percent. 


Device 


Computer: 


Main random- 
access mass 
storage: 


Secondary 
random-access 
mass storage: 


Cost and Configuration for One Million Records 

Description 

Medium scale machine, such as SDS Sigma 7, 

IBM 36O/5O, or RCA 70/45 with six tape units, 
card reader, card punch, and line printer 

Large scale disk file, such as Bryant 4000 
series. Capacity, 400 million bytes; esti¬ 
mated storage of 750,000 records. 

Disk pack system, such as IBM 2314, with 
eight drives. Capacity, 200 million bytes; 
estimated storage of 250,000 records plus 
locating information directories for one 
million records 

Total 

Budgetary estimates (rounded): 


Cost 


$30,000/month 


8,350/month 


5,570/morrbh 

$43,920/month 

45,000/month 
(one shift) 

63,000/month 
(two shifts) 

8l,000/month 
(three shifts) 


69 










Differential Cost for an Additional Million Records 


Second large scale disk file 
Second disk pack system 


$ 8 ,350/month 
5,570/month 


Total 


$13,920/month 


Budgetary estimates (rounded): 


15,000/month 
(one shift) 


21,000/month 
(two shifts) 


27,000/month 
(three shifts) 


By contrast, the capacity can he increased in increments of 
one million records for about $ 15,000 per month. For the first increment 
this is a 100-percent increase in capacity for a 30-percent increase in 
cost. 

3. Influence of Processing Rates 

The previous remarks have considered only storage considerations. 
Processing rates are obviously an additional determinant. The system 
described here is capable of processing about 1,000 converted records per 
shift in addition to performing its storage-oriented services. Hence, 
approximately 5,000 records per day or about 1.3 million records per year 
would be an upper limit for a practical system. For convenience, this 
figure has been rounded to one million. 


The daily and weekly allocation of processing time by princi¬ 


pal system activities is tabulated in appendix H. The principal activity 
is record conversion and file building. This requires most of the total 


70 




time scheduled. Activities related to the distribution service occupy 
only a few hours per week. A token number of on-demand requests (2,000 
per day) is included for testing purposes. About two hours and 10 minutes 
are required to process these requests. 


A three-shift operation provides two considerable advantages: 
it minimizes the average record processing cost as well as the total 
elapsed time required to process a given number of records. Three shifts 
would permit approximately one million records to be processed in 12 
months, and the computer system would cost about $8l, 000 per month. 

To increase the processing capacity, it would be possible to 
add an additional central processor to some configurations to achieve a 
true multiprocessing capability. Alternatively, a second basic system 
complete with peripherals could be added to share the same mass memory. 
Since a great many of the operations performed are tape operations, even 
a multiprocessing approach would require additional peripherals. There¬ 
fore, it would be necessary, in essence, to duplicate the basic computer 
system ($30,000 per month) to achieve increased processing capacity. In 
this case, processing capacity would be almost doubled. True doubling 
would not be achieved because of increased demands on shared mass storage 
and the consequent increase in service times. An advantage of the dual 
computer approach, however, would be increased reliability; that is, some 
processing capability would remain even with one system down. 


k. Basic Cost Schedule: Three-Shift Operation 

If it is assumed that one processor would run three shifts, and 

71 


351-845 0 - 69—6 




a new disk system would be added every 12 months as an additional million 
records were processed, then four million records would be completed in 
just over four years. The monthly cost would start at $8l ,000 per month 
during the first 12 months, and be raised by $27,000 increments every 12 
months, reaching a cost of $162,000 per month at the end of four years. 

At this time the system would have four sets of disks, which would be 
sufficient for the four million records it would hold. 

5 . Basic Cost Schedule: Two-Shift Operation 

In the section on organization, staffing estimates are made for 
a production of 10,000 records per week. This production rate could be 
serviced by a two-shift operation on one computer, and would have the 
advantages of leaving scheduled time for preventive maintenance and having 
slack time to make up for unscheduled down time. 

In this case, the monthly cost would start at $ 6^,000 per month 
and would be raised by $21,000 increments every two years (about 100 weeks) 
reaching a cost of $ 126,000 per month at the end of six years. At this 
time, this system would have four sets of disks, which would suffice to the 
end of the eighth year when it would have reached a capacity of four mil¬ 
lion records. 

The computer system for the two-shift approach would cost a 
total of about $ 9*1 million dollars over eight years. For the same four 
million record final capacity, the three-shift approach would cost a 
total of about $5*8 million over four years. 


72 







16 . Additional Costs 


Certain one-time cost factors in computer operations depend upon 
the site selected. Because of wide variations in the age and utility 
capacity of buildings,, it is impossible to assess these costs until a site 
has been selected. Among the factors to be reckoned with are (l) adequacy 
of loading docks, hallways, and freight elevators to accommodate heavy 
equipment, (2) electric power, (3) communication facilities, ( 4 ) floor 
loading capacity, (5) availability of general air conditioning, ( 6 ) ease 
of installing reserve air conditioning for "hot spots," (7) ceiling height. 


(8) room for expansion, and (9) freight and rigging costs for installation. 
Inadequacy in any of these conditions would result in substantial expend- 
itures for site upgrading or the expense of moving to a different site 
when more space is needed. 


. H. System Design and Programming Costs 

The costs of systems design and programming for a RECON service 
(assuming contractual support at $35,000 per man-year) are as follows: 





Cost 

Task 


Man-years 

(rounded) 

System design of procedures, 

hardware, software 

2 

$70,000 

Implementation of software 


14.25 

499,000 


Subtotal 

16.25 

$569,000 

Software for direct-read OCR 

(if feasible) 

3 

$105,000 


Total 

19.25 

$ 674,000 


73 









Chapter 6 

TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES: MANPOWER CONSIDERATIONS 

A. Introduction 

The alternative means of converting cataloging data to machine- 
readable form were discussed in chapter 5 from the standpoint of machine 
requirements and their costs. This chapter considers the functions 
requiring manpower, the staff complements needed to achieve a specified 
level of productivity by the major alternatives, and the unit costs for 
manpower in each case. 

B. Functional Requirements 

1 . Selection of the Data for Conversion 

All of the conversion alternatives would require sorting the LC 
record set to identify the records to be converted. As has been noted 
in chapter 5, the record set is arranged by card series and grouped by 
year within each series. Only a few of the series (notably the C, J, and 
K for Oriental materials) are linguistically homogeneous; all of the others 
are mixed. Thus it would be necessary to go through them, card by card, 
to group them by the languages that might be converted. Since this manual 
sort would be time-consuming under the best circumstances, it seems 


7 ^ 




desirable to divide the record set into all of the groups that might ever 
be converted even though the immediate objectives of the conversion project 
might be quite limited. 

After the cards were microfilmed, the record set would have to 
be reconstituted in its original order. This step would be facilitated by 
the fact that, since the sequence of LC card numbers would not have to be 
disturbed by the original sort, many of the cards would remain in sequen¬ 
tial blocks. 

Although other methods of selecting the data were considered, it 
could not be demonstrated that they would offer significant cost savings. 
Therefore, since only manual selection is applicable to all technical 
alternatives, it was used to determine the cost of this function. In an 
ongoing operation, however, the method of selection (like other phases of 
I the process) should be reviewed constantly to insure the most efficient 
procedure. 

2 . Editing 

In this analysis, the editing process comprises (l) all forms of 
pre-editing (that is, full or partial coding prior to input), (2) proofing 
for error correction, (3) post-editing to correct and augment the output 
of the format recognition programs, when used, and (ij-) editing of new data 
obtained as a result of comparing the interim records against the LC 
Official Catalog. The human effort for editing would vary with the tech¬ 
nical alternative but a major conclusion of this study is that this func¬ 
tion would require the largest proportion of staff in every case. The time 

75 





apparently saved by raw input (direct-read OCR or keying an unedited record) 
followed by format recognition would largely be offset by a marked increase 
in the time spent in proofing and post-editing to bring the record to an 
acceptable level of content differentiation. 

The calculations of staff requirements were based on MARC experi¬ 
ence adjusted (where appropriate) to take account of the effects of dif¬ 
ferent technical alternatives. It was assumed that full pre-editing accord¬ 
ing to the present practice of the MARC Distribution Service would require 
more staff than any other conversion method. This number was taken as the 
base staff complement; it is identical with the staff required for alter¬ 
native HI. It must be stressed that experience with MARC II editing has 
been too brief to produce definitive figures for production rates. The 
estimates for the base complement were the best that could be made at the 
time of the RECON study. 

When other editing methods were considered, assumptions were made 
as to the proportion of the base staff complement that would be needed to 
perform the function under the specified conditions. 

In the absence of any pre-editing, it was assumed that the effort 
of proofing and post-editing would require 75 percent of the effort of 
full editing. This is because, without cues, a format recognition program 
would fail to identify data fields correctly in a high proportion of the 
cases. The resulting machine-readable record would be so flawed that 
proofing would be slow and, itself, susceptible to error because of the 
fatigue factor. As has already been noted, the ideal combination seems to 





be partial editing and format recognition processing in such proportions 
as to make best use of the capabilities of man and the computer. 

It was assumed that the effort of partial editing would be 
roughly equivalent to the level of editing required in MARC I. On the 
basis of comparison with MARC II experience, this meant that partial edit- 
ling would require about 60 percent of the effort of full editing. Partial 
editing would offer greater benefits than the 40 -percent reduction in 
initial workload might indicate because the simpler coding would provide 
fewer opportunities for the editor to make mistakes. 

In addition to pre-editing, proofing, and post-editing of the 
original record, the editing process must take account of the need to 
differentiate data added as a result of catalog comparison (described 
fully in 4 below). Since main, added, and subject entries would be affected 
by this process, changes in tags, indicators, and subfield codes might be 
necessary or at least would have to be considered. For the purposes of 
calculation, it was estimated that the staff effort required to perform 
this function would amount to about five percent of the effort of full 
editing. This estimate was based on the assumption that full content 
differentiation should be performed entirely by human editing. 

p. Input 

The physical conversion of the catalog data to machine-readable 
form might be accomplished by various means described in the preceding 
chapter. As has been noted, all of these methods would require some 
keyboard input at the initial conversion stage as well as the correction 


77 



stage. MARC II experience was again taken as a base for calculation but 
an adjustment was made to take account of the fact that the keying rate 
on a magnetic tape inscriber is higher than on the paper tape device cur¬ 
rently being used. 

The keying effort would be directly dependent on the technical 
approach being used because each approach would affect the length of the 
record being keyed and the complexity of its coding. The most complete 
study of file conversion^/ indicates that the keying effort is strongly 
affected by the degree of complexity of the material being input. Any 
elements in the record that vary from straight English language texts will 
pose problems for the keyboard operation. By analyzing these complexities 
in representative records, it would be possible to calculate the degree 
of complexity in the average record. 

An analysis of representative LC catalog cards showed that even 
English language records are 35 percent more complex than ordinary English 
text. This increased complexity was largely attributable to the fact that 
catalog records abound in personal names that confront the operator with 
the necessity of uppercase shifting and keying of unfamiliar character 
strings. Since the calculations of keying rates were based on present 
MARC experience, the complexity of ordinary English language catalog 


1 . U. S. Air Development Center, Rome, N. Y. Research and Technology 
Division . Handbook for planning file conversion. Rome, 1967. (Tech¬ 
nical report no. RADC-TR-67-I68). 


78 





records has already been taken into account. 

Extension of the conversion effort to other languages would 
require that allowance be made for a reduced production rate because of 
the greater complexity of the records. Preliminary analyses of other types 
of records indicated that Prench and German catalog records have a com¬ 
plexity of 55 percent and that a group of other roman alphabet language 
catalog records showed a complexity of 65 percent. For the purposes of 
broad generalization in the cost figures for this study, 45 percent was 
taken as the mean degree of complexity for the records being input. As 
already noted in chapter 5 this results in a keying rate of 6,600 charac¬ 
ters per hour. 

It should be noted that the complexity of the record, with 
respect to coding that must be keyed, has a direct bearing on the probable 
error rate of the keying. Text that more nearly resembles straight alpha¬ 
betical text should result in a lower error rate for keying than would a 
fully coded MARC II record. Recognition of this fact was another argument 
in favor of attempting to devise a method of input that would reduce the 
amount of pre-coding needed to achieve the final machine-readable record. 

Input includes making corrections and additions to the machine- 
readable record, as well as keying the original record. On the basis of 
present MARC experience it appears that approximately one-third of the 
total input effort would be devoted to keying corrections to the record. 

It was not considered necessary, however, to calculate the requirements 
for these two categories separately because they require the same skill. 


79 


Ij-. Catalog Comparison 

The study of Library of Congress catalog records (appendix E) 
demonstrated that considerably more than half of all changes made in the 
Official Catalog do not result in changes in the record set. Thus, across 
the board, about 20 percent of the cards in the record set differ from 
the master records. The actual percentage of differences is directly 
related to the age of the records; for example, J>b percent of the 30-year- 
old records in the Official Catalog show changes that have not been made 
in the record set. 

These discrepancies are especially significant when their effect 

is considered. The analysis showed that subject entries and added entries 

are most likely to be affected because, by policy, the Library does not 

2 / 

reprint catalog records solely to show these changes.— 7 Since these data 
elements are of prime importance for searching and retrieval, it is appar¬ 
ent that they should be incorporated in the machine-readable data base at 
the time of conversion. Failure to do so would seriously impair the qual¬ 
ity of the records thereby imposing the task of updating them on every 
library that obtained cataloging information from the central bibliographic 
store. Although the record set can only be revised by making a record-by- 


2. This is explained by the fact that changes in the Library's own cata¬ 
logs can be made without reprinting the cards because new added and 
subject entries can be written at the top of unit cards without respect 
to the original tracings at the bottom. 


80 



record comparison with the Official Catalog, the working task force agreed 
unanimously that the task should be performed and its cost be absorbed as 
part of the basic conversion cost. 

As indicated in chapter 5, parts of the record set would be con¬ 
verted to machine-readable form, sorted by machine on the first 10 charac¬ 
ters of the main entries, then printed in diagnostic form. Before proof¬ 
ing, the records would be checked against the Official Catalog to deter¬ 
mine what changes (if any) were required. The rough sort would reduce the 
effort of locating the master records by allowing the catalog editor to 
work in the same general area of the catalog instead of having to pursue 
the random alphabetical sequence of the record set. 

Having located the master record, the catalog editor would be 
able to tell quickly in a high proportion of the cases that no change had 
been made on the master record. In such cases, he would simply indicate 
that the record had been checked and pass on to the next title. When 
changes were apparent, they could easily be entered as corrections on the 
diagnostic in most cases. In a few instances, the changes might be so 
extensive (e.g., lengthy additions to a contents note) that it would be 
more efficient to reproduce the master record by xerox or some other means 
to avoid tedious copying by hand. 

Problems might be encountered in catalog comparison that could 
not be solved by the journeyman catalog editor because of language, inter¬ 
pretation of cataloging rules, or legibility. They would be flagged for 
the attention of a reviser who would clarify them in the course of checking 


81 






the validity of all changes that were noted. Content designators for 
additions and corrections would normally be assigned in the course of the 
proofing and post-editing process but the task might also be done as part 
of the revision of catalog comparison. 

If the basic conversion method did not depend on direct-reading 
of the record by an OCR device, it would be possible to make the catalog 
comparison before input to minimize the load of re-keying later. 

In general, the time required to locate the master record would 
be relatively constant regardless of the age and language of the record 
involved. In some cases, however, allowance would have to be made for a 
slightly slower rate of locating records in difficult languages where the 
unfamiliar words would tend to inhibit quick finding of the record. 

The difficulty in identifying, interpreting, and recording 
changes would be related directly to the age of the card. Older cards are 
more likely to appear in the Official Catalog as handwritten records, and 
they are more likely to exhibit pecularities in cataloging rules that make 
them difficult to interpret. The language of the text is also an important 
consideration. Foreign language records, particularly for the less common 
languages, would impose an additional burden on the catalog editor. 

The catalog comparison effort would also run into difficulties 
because the Official Catalog is an active working tool. Sometimes a master 
record would be represented only by an out slip, indicating that it was in 
the process of being changed. A decision would have to be made as to 
whether it would be desirable to track down the record, or to allow the 


82 


record to go unchanged into the data base. If provisions were made for 
updating records in the retrospective data base, a correction would even¬ 
tually be made. The choice of action might depend on the nature of the 
change being made. 

5* Quality Control 

The final stage of the conversion process would involve a criti¬ 
cal review of the input to insure that the machine-readable records were 
of a high quality. The records would already have been proofread to 
review the editor's work, the accuracy of input (whenever keying is 
involved), and the adequacy of the format recognition processing. The 
final review would involve verification of the foregoing steps from the 
standpoint of the coherence of the record. The verifier would examine 
the record in its own terms without direct comparison to a source document. 
In effect, he would ask, "Does this record make sense?" At present, in 
the formative period of the MARC Distribution Service, verifiers return 
about one out of every 10 records for some kind of correction as a result 
of inspecting 100 percent of the records being processed. 

The high cost of inspecting every record is a strong inducement 
to explore all possible ways to reduce it, particularly in a large-scale 
project to convert retrospective records when batch processing might offer 
opportunities that are not available when converting current catalog 
records. The search for an alternative is further stimulated by the 
awareness that 100-per cent inspection does not guarantee the detection and 
correction of every error. This is demonstrated by the fact that errors 




are discovered on LC printed cards despite repeated inspections of every 
record during the course of its creation. 

Acceptance sampling is a well-established technique of statistical 
quality control. It depends on 100-percent inspection of a randomly 
selected lot that constitutes about 10 percent of a batch (e.g., 100 
records out of 1,000). The assumption is made that the error rate in the 
lot is an accurate reflection of the error rate in the batch. 

By defining the percentage of erroneous records that can be tol¬ 
erated in the lot, it is possible to determine whether or not the entire 
batch should be accepted or rejected. When the percentage of error in the 
lot falls within the acceptable limit, the errors actually discovered are 
corrected and the batch is passed into the data base. When the error rate 
in the lot exceeds the acceptable percentage, the entire batch is subjected 
to 100-percent inspection to detect and correct errors. 

Although the determination of an acceptable level of quality is 
anything but easy, the cost benefits of statistical quality control would 
be ample recompense for the agony of decision. The study of changes in 
LC catalog records suggests that approximately four percent of the manually 
produced records contain errors despite repeated 100-percent inspections. 

If this error rate can be tolerated (as, in effect, it is), it might be 
taken as the limit for statistical quality control. 

In seeking to apply statistical quality control to the conversion 
of catalog records, some account must be taken of the relative importance 
of various types of error. An error in an access point such as main, 


84 


added, or subject entry is more significant than an error elsewhere in the 
record. Some critical errors might be detected by machine (e.g., the check 
digit method of detecting an erroneous card number) but most of them would 
have to be found by human inspection. In any form of quality control it 
would be essential for the verifier to pay particular attention to the key 
elements of the record. In acceptance sampling it might be possible to 
devise a means of weighting errors to take their relative importance into 
account when determining the acceptability of a lot. 

For the purposes of estimating the cost of quality control, it 
was assumed that lot sampling of 10 percent of all converted records would 
result in acceptance of 55 percent of the batches. This would mean that 
the overall quality control effort would amount to inspecting about 50 
percent of the total number of records (the 10-percent sample plus total 
inspection of 45 percent of the remaining 90 percent equals 50.5 percent). 
If this reduction in effort could be achieved, the cost of the conversion 
project would be materially reduced. 

C. Administrative Organization 

1. Basic Assumptions 

To calculate unit costs for manpower in the conversion effort, 
it was decided to create a basic staff complement capable of processing 
10,000 records a week for each technical alternative. This hypothetical 
organization can serve as a module for determining the level of staffing 
needed to convert any given number of records in a specified time span. 


85 








Sections were planned to perform each of the functions of con¬ 
version. Each section was staffed at the level required to maintain the 
10, OOOrecords-a-week conversion rate, 52 weeks a year. When allowance 
was made for the average time taken for vacation, sick leave, and holi¬ 
days hy Federal employees, it was calculated that the average number of 
working days during the year was 225. It was judged also that one could 
not realistically expect peak production rates to be maintained through 
a working day. Six hours was taken as the period of effective daily pro¬ 
duction to allow for training, rest periods, problem resolution, fatigue, 
and irregularities in work flow. Therefore, a total of 1,538 effective 
hours per year was used to calculate production rates and unit costs. 

2. Categories of Staff 

The following assumptions were made about the categories of staff 
required to conduct a project of this nature: 

a. Project Direction 

It was assumed that the same level of project direction would 
be required regardless of the technical alternative. This office would 
be responsible for maintaining overall surveillance of the project, see¬ 
ing that production goals were met, and resolving administrative problems. 
It was assumed that the following positions and grade levels would be 
appropriate to the responsibilities of the office: 


86 



Approximate Federal 


Job title 

annual salary 

grade 

Number 

Project head 

$ 17,511 

GS-14 

1 

Assistant project head 

11,889 

GS- 13 . 

1 

Secretary 

6,532 

GS- 6 

1 

Clerk 

1,753 

GS- 3 

1 


b. Editing Section 

The staff requirements for editing in a conversion project deal¬ 
ing with retrospective catalog records differ from those of one dealing 
with current catalog records. In the latter case, the editor benefits 
from the fact that the cataloger has assigned mnemonic tags to many of 
the data fields. In a retrospective conversion project, no such benefit 
would be obtainable without introducing another costly step. It was 
assumed, therefore, that somewhat higher grades of staffing would be 
required for the retrospective conversion project. The section should 
have the following categories of staff: 

Approximate Federal 


Job title 

annual salary 

grade 

Number 

Head 

$ 12,580 

GS-12 

1 

Assistant head 

10,513 

GS-11 

1 

Supervisor 

8,711 

GS- 9 

5/ 

Editor 

6,955 

GS- 6/7 

1/ 

Clerk 

1,753 

GS- 3 

1 

The ratio of supervisory 

staff to editors should be approximately one to 


3. The number depends on the technical alternative. 

87 


351-845 0-69—7 
















c. Input Section 

The following categories of staff would be required for the 


Input Section: 

Approximate 

Federal 


Job title 

annual salary 

grade 

Number 

Head 

$8,744 

GS-9 

1 

Assistant head 

7,214 

GS-7 

1 / 

Typist 

5,316 

GS-3/4/5 

3 / 

Clerk 

^,753 

GS-3 

1 


The ratio of supervisory staff to typists should be approximately one to 
10. Therefore, the position of assistant head would not be required in 
alternatives A2 and A3 which have 9 and 10 typists respectively, 
d. Catalog Comparison Section 

Since requirements of catalog comparison (when applicable) are 
not affected by the method of input, it is convenient to present the actual 
numbers of staff for each category: 


Job title 

Approximate 
annual salary 

Federal 

grade 

Number 

Head 

$12,580 

GS-12 

1 

Assistant head 

10,543 

GS-11 

1 

Reviser 

8,744 

GS- 9 

1 

Catalog editor 

6,532 

GS-5/6/7 

14 

Clerk 

^,753 

GS-3 

1 


The high ratio of supervisors to catalog editors (approximately one to 
five) would be required for the proper fulfillment of the responsibilities 













of this section. The journeyman editors would often be unable to inter¬ 


pret catalog changes correctly so their work would have to be guided and 
reviewed by the three supervisory staff members. The three grade levels 
for editors would provide a promotional ladder to take account of dif¬ 
ferent levels of capability acquired through experience, 
e. Quality Control Section 

The workload of quality control remains constant regardless of 
the conversion method so the following summary shows the number of staff 
that would be required in each category: 


Job title 

Approximate 
annual salary 

Federal 

grade 

Number 

Head 

$12,580 

as-12 

1 

Assistant head 

10,543 

GS-11 

1 

Verifier 

8,744 

GS- 9 

12 

Clerk 

4,753 

GS- 3 

1 


The grade level of the verifiers is influenced by the responsibility placed 
upon them. They would have to be more experienced than editors and so 
should be paid at a higher rate. The ratio of supervisors to verifiers 
should be about one to six. 


3. Staff Levels 

Table 6.1 shows the levels of staffing in terms of numbers of 
persons required to carry out the functions of each of four major techni¬ 
cal alternatives. Appendix I has a table showing staff for all 20 con¬ 
version methods. It will be observed that variations among technical 


89 







alternatives hinge on differences in the level of staffing required for 
editing and input. Staff for project direction, catalog comparison, and 
quality control remain constant regardless of the means of converting the 
record to machine-readable form. 

Table 6.1--Staff complements for each conversion function, by major 
technical alternative 


Function 

Technical 

alternative 

A3 

B3 

E3 

H4 

Project direction 

4 

4 

4 

4 

Editing 

43 

43 

35 

55 

Input 

12 

22 

21 

26 

Catalog comparison 

18 

18 

18 

18 

Quality control 

15 

15 

15 

15 

Total 

92 

102 

93 

118 


It is interesting to compare the number of staff members required 
for each of these alternatives. As expected, alternative H4 (full editing) 
requires the largest staff complement. The difference between A3 (direct- 
read OCR) and B3 (keying an unedited record by magnetic tape inscriber) is 
obviously accounted for by the material difference in the number of staff 
members required for the Input Section. The surprising point is that the 
staff for alternative E3 (partial editing) is almost identical to that for 
A3* The significance of this similarity will be fully appreciated when 
machine and manpower costs are added together in chapter 7 to establish 
the total unit cost per record. 

Figure 6.1 shows a detailed table of organization for alternative 

E3 which is judged to provide the optimum staff for the conversion project. 

90 











Figure 6.1—Table of organization for technical alternative E3 
(Staff: 93; weekly output: 10,000 records) 

















D. Unit Manpower Costs 


1. Selection of Data to Be Converted 

As was noted in section B, selection of data to be converted was 
assumed to be a one-time operation and, therefore, a one-time cost. It 
was estimated that the Card Division record set would be sorted into major 
language groups at a cost of $7 per 1,000 cards. After the cards were 
microfilmed, the record set could be reconstituted at a cost of $3 per 
1,000 cards. These costs were based on the assumption that clerical staff 
at GS-4 or 5 level (approximately $5,000 a year) could be trained to make 
most of the distinctions required for sorting. 

In the expectation that all of the record groups would eventually 
be converted to machine-readable form by some method, no attempt was made 
to calculate what the true cost per record would be if only part of the 
data base were converted. If this were done for English language records 
from i960 to date, the cost of sorting all i960 or later records to locate 
the desired entries would have to be prorated among the records actually 
selected for conversion. Since as many as eight different segments of the 
master data base might be converted in various combinations, it was not 
feasible to determine prorated unit costs for every possibility. 

2. Microfilming 

Although not a pure manpower cost, microfilming has been included 
in this section. It was assumed that microfilming would be done by a flow 
camera at a cost of .2 cents per record on a mass basis. This cost includes 


92 










operator, machine, and processing costs. Although the working task force 
has some doubts about the quality of microfilming produced by a flow 
camera, it was decided to use this figure on the strength of a contractor's 
report on OCR conversion. It should be noted, however, that this cost 
makes no allowance for the consequences of imperfectly reproduced cards 
that would have to be retrieved individually from the Card Division record 
set so that legible copies could be made. 

All of the conversion alternatives require production of a hard 
copy from the microfilm for proofing if not conversion. It was estimated 
that copies could be made on light-weight paper at a cost of one cent per 
record on a mass-processing basis. 

3. Costs for Other Functions 

Since the manpower requirements to implement each of the tech¬ 
nical alternatives were based on a production level of 10,000 records a 
week, the unit costs for each function could be calculated easily. The 
aggregate annual salaries of all persons required for a given technical 
alternative were incremented by 7.5 percent for fringe benefits (a figure 
based on Government budgetary practices). The resulting figure was divided 
by 520,000 (the number of units produced in a year). 

Table 6.2 shows the unit costs for all functions related to each 
of- four major technical alternatives. A full display of unit costs for 
jail alternatives appears in appendix I. 

In determining manpower costs, the following rules were applied: 






(l) where only one Federal grade level was specified, the salary of the 
second step of the grade was used, and (2) where two or more grade levels 
were involved (e.g., editors at GS-6 or 7)> an average salary level was 
chosen. 

Table 6.2—Manpower unit costs for each conversion 
function, by major technical alternative 


Function 

Technical alternative 

A3 

B3 

E3 

h4 

Project direction 

$.090 

$.090 

$.090 

$.090 

Selection!/ 

.010 

.010 

.010 

.010 

Pr eparation^/ 

.012 

.012 

.012 

.012 

Editing 

.640 

.640 

• 521 

.816 

Input 

.138 

.252 

.241 

.300 

Catalog comparison 

.265 

.265 

.265 

.265 

Quality control 

• 275 

• 275 

.275 

.275 


1. Includes sorting the IC record set into language categories 
(. 007 ) and reconstitution of the original sequence (. 003 ). 

2. Includes microfilming (.002) and making hard copy (.010). 

No attempt was made to take account of increases in salaries 
that will inevitably occur before the project could be implemented. The 
figures projected in this study represent the lower limit of the cost that 
might actually be incurred in carrying out such a project, even in the 
near future. The fairly pessimistic judgments as to productivity in 
relation to the number of effective hours may help to minimize the effect 
of overall increases in manpower costs but, in actual planning, allowance 
would have to be made for the upward trend of salaries over the period of 
the project. 


94 










E. Staffing Problems 


A consideration of the manpower requirements for a large-scale 
conversion project would be incomplete if it ignored the tremendous prob¬ 
lems of recruiting, training, and retaining the staff necessary to carry 
out the project. The analysis of the staff skills for the various sections 
makes it abundantly clear that they are essentially the same as those 
required for Library of Congress cataloging and the MARC Distribution 
Service. Experience in both operations shows that it is extremely dif¬ 
ficult to build and maintain high levels of staffing for operations that 
involve cataloging skills at almost any level. It must be recognized, 
therefore, that staffing a project to convert retrospective records to 
machine-readable form would not depend solely on the availability of funds. 
Regardless of where the conversion project was based, the effort to recruit 
staff would be handicapped by the fact that the demand for persons with 
cataloging skills already exceeds the supply. 


F. Space Requirements 

No effort has been made to estimate the costs of space, light, 
heat, etc., for a conversion project, but since availability of space would 
1 be a critical concern, it merits discussion. 

The Library of Congress is already so cramped for space that 
; ma ny of its current activities have had to be relocated far from the main 
(buildings. Even securing space for the relatively small staff of the MARC 
(Distribution Service has been difficult. It is almost certain, therefore, 
that the Library could not find room within its central buildings to 


95 





accommodate a conversion staff capable of processing 10,000 records a 
week by any of the alternatives discussed in this report. 

It is not absolutely essential, however, for the staff of the 
conversion project to be based in the main building or the annex of the 
Library. Sorting and microfilming of the record set would have to be done 
in the Card Division in any case. These tasks could be done in off-hours. 
Of the other functions, only catalog comparison is dependent on being in 
the Library proper, so the rest of the staff could be housed elsewhere. 
Their isolation would entail some loss in efficiency. Editors and veri¬ 
fiers would be handicapped because they could not check the Official Cata¬ 
log to resolve certain problems. Transporting printouts for catalog com¬ 
parison between the two locations might be troublesome, and the separation 
of the Catalog Comparison Section and the Project Office could be a source 
of administrative difficulty. In the long run, it is to be hoped that the 
Library's space problem will be solved by the construction of a third 
building. 

G. Conclusion 

The working task force recognizes the existing demands for staff 
and space to maintain and even to increase current levels of cataloging 
as well as to expand the MARC Distribution Service. However, the benefits 
to be realized from retrospective conversion by the library community, 
including the Library of Congress itself, warrant a concerted effort to 
procure all the necessary resources for implementation at the earliest 
possible date: funds, space, and personnel. 

96 



Chapter 7 


COSTS OF CONVERSION 

This chapter presents a detailed summary of the combined man/ 
machine costs per record for the four major technical alternatives and 
applies them to the three high-priority segments of the master data base. 

In addition, hardware and software costs are summarized so that the reader 
may find the total costs for conversion of the retrospective material in 
one place. 

Table 7*1 gives the man/machine unit costs for input by function. 
When both categories of cost are combined, it appears that the unit cost 
of conversion by alternative E3 (partial editing plus format recognition) 
would be significantly lower than the other alternatives. It is also worth 
noting that, when all costs are considered, conversion of unedited records 
by magnetic tape inscriber would be slightly lower than conversion by 
direct-read OCR. Table 7.2 summarizes the unit costs and shows the per- 
: centages chargeable to man and machine. 

To obtain the conversion costs for each of the three high-prior- 
: ity segments of the master data base, the estimated number of volumes in 
each category was multiplied by the unit cost for each major technical 
alternative. Table 70 gives the results singly and in combination. 


97 





Table 7.1—Man/machine unit costs for each function, 
by major technical alternative 


Function 

Cost per 

record for each alternative 

A 3 

B 3 

E 3 

H 4 

Project direction 

$ .090 

$ .090 

$ .090 

$ .090 

Selection 

Dividing record set into 
language groups 

.007 

.007 

.007 

.007 

Remerging language groups 

.003 

.003 

.003 

.003 

Preparation 

Microfilming cards 

.002 

.002 

.002 

.002 

Making hard copy 

.010 

.010 

.010 

.010 

Input . 

Keying!;/ 

.138 

.252 

.241 

.300 

Machine cost of input 
device 

. 171 ^/ 

.041 

.051 

.063 

Editing!/ 

.640 

.640 

• 521 

.816 

Format recognition 

.047 

.047 

5 / 

- 

Output 

Sorting 

.009 

.009 

.009 

.009 

Printing 

.032 

.032 

.032 

.032 

Catalog comparison 

.265 

.265 

.265 

.265 

Quality control^/ 

.275 

.275 

.275 

.275 

Total (rounded) 

$1.69 

$1.67 

$1.51 

$1.87 


1 . The unit cost takes account of additional work generated by cor¬ 
rections from proofing, catalog comparison, or quality control. 

2 . The unit cost for direct-read OCR (.167) has been increased by 
. 004 , 10 percent of the machine cost for unedited tape inscriber 
records (. 04 l) because an estimated 10 percent of the records 
would be rejected by OCR and thus would have to be input by keying. 

3 * The unit cost of format recognition in E3 is too small (less than 
.001) to be included in this table. 











Table 7.2—Manpower and machine unit costs, by major technical alternative 


Category of cost 

Technical alternative 

A3 

B3 

E3 

h4 

Unit 

cost 

Percent 

Unit 

cost 

Percent 

Unit 

cost 

Percent 

Unit 

cost 

Percent 

Total 

$ 1.69 

100.0 

$1.67 

100.0 

$1-51 

100.0 

$ 1.87 

100.0 

Manpower 

1.43 

84.6 

1.54 

92.2 

1.42 

94.0 

1.77 

94.7 

Machine 1/ 

.26 

15-4 

•13 

7-8 

• 09 

6.0 

.10 

5.3 


1. The machine and manpower costs are derived from table 7.1. The machine portion equals the sum 
of machine cost of input device, format recognition, sorting, and printing. All other costs in 
table 7*1 were assigned to the manpower portion. 


Table 7«3--Total conversion cost (in thousands) for specific categories 
of records, by major technical alternative^/ 



Number of 

Technical alternative 

Conversion category 

records 

(000) 

A 5 

(000) 

B 3 

(000) 

E 3 

(000) 

Ek 

(000) 

English (i960-March 1969) 

386 

$ 652 

$ 646 

$ 581 

$ 723 

Romance and German 
(i960-June 1970) 

381 

644 

637 

57 ^ 

715 

English (1960-March 1969) 
and Romance and German 
(i960-June 1970) 

767 

1,296 

1,283 

1,155 

1,436 

English (1898-1959) 

1,728 

2,919 

2,891 

2,602 

3,235 

English (1898-March 1969) 
and Romance and German 
(i960-June 1970) 

2,495 

4,215 

4,174 

3,757 

4,671 


1 . Calculated from unrounded unit costs. 




99 




























Using the least expensive method (E3), English languages records from I960 
to March 1969 could he converted for an estimated $581,000. Conversion 
of Romance and German language records from i 960 to June 1970 would cost 
approximately the same amount ($57^>000). The cost of converting all 
English language records from 1898-1959 would amount to $2,602,000. 

The cost estimates of the system design and software would be 
constant regardless of the number of records to be converted. The cost 
of the software would be essentially the same for all technical alter¬ 
natives except those using the direct-read OCR. For most alternatives, 
the total cost for system design and software would be $569,000; the cost 
for alternatives requiring direct-read OCR programs would be $67^,000. 

The estimates were based on contractual support at $35,000 per man-year. 

An in-house effort would involve a much lower cost per man-year but would 
probably require a greater elapsed time because of the difficulty of 
recruiting and retaining programmers. 

The total cost for hardware was based on the total number of 
records to be converted over a period of years. The price for the computer 
and standard peripheral equipment (tape drives, printer, etc. ) would be 
constant but the cost of the disks would vary with the number required. 

The hardware cost for English language records from i 960 to March 1969 is 
$63,000 per month. Romance and German language records from i 960 to 
June 1967 could be accommodated in the system at no additional cost. The 
conversion of English language records from 1898-1959 will result in a 
total hardware cost of $ 126,000 per month for the aggregate data base. 


100 


These costs are based on a two-shift operation. 


There is a significant similarity of the hardware/software 
requirements for conversion of the retrospective material and those for 
the LC Card Division mechanization project. The two systems differ princi¬ 
pally in the output phase: RECON output would be records for distribution 
on magnetic tape; the Card Division output would use a magnetic tape record 
formatted for processing by a photocomposition device to produce a printed 
card. If a project to convert retrospective material were conducted at 
the Library of Congress, there is little doubt that the costs of hardware 
and software could be shared with the Card Division mechanization project. 



101 




Chapter 8 

FUNDING AND OTHER SUPPORT CONSIDERATIONS 

A fundamental recommendation of the present study is that the 
MARC Distribution Service for current cataloging be expanded at the 
earliest possible date to include data for items in languages other than 
English, for items in nonroman alphabets, and for nonbook materials. 
Although, strictly speaking, this recommendation does not affect the pre¬ 
sent task of conversion of retrospective cataloging, its implementation 
is extremely important in eliminating or reducing the future accumulation 
of cataloging data in non-machine-readable form. The cost of this expanded 
operation could be thought of as a regularly budgeted operation within the 
Library of Congress. The goal of MARC expansion is one which the Library 
has already accepted; the emphasis on speed in attaining this goal does 
not affect the financial responsibility. 

The costs of actual conversion of the retrospective catalog 
records should be funded through the Library of Congress by appropriated 
funds, possibly supplemented by grant and transferred funds. Conversion 
of LC's retrospective cataloging data is a major aspect of the central 
bibliographic system currently being explored by the Library along lines 


102 


first proposed in the King report!/. Since the present study recommends 
the LC Official Catalog as a master data base and, further, the identifi¬ 
cation of bibliographic elements essentially according to the standard of 
the MARC II format, the resulting machine-readable data should be suffi¬ 
cient to meet the LC requirements for its central bibliographic system in 
terms of completeness of content and identification of bibliographic ele¬ 
ments. The funds allocated for this purpose should be sufficient to cover 
input, storage, processing, updating, and maintenance of files. 

The Library of Congress should not be expected, however, to 
support all of the costs of research and development to create the operat¬ 
ing system required to convert, maintain, and distribute retrospective 
cataloging data to other institutions. The following proposals offer 
approaches for funding these aspects of conversion. 

The library community can expect to benefit in two general ways 
from conversion of retrospective cataloging data. In the first place, the 
incorporation of this data in a machine-based central bibliographic system 
at the Library of Congress will, it is hoped, enable the Library to carry 
out its operations more rapidly. It is clear that the operations of the 
Library of Congress have had, for many years, a vital effect on other 
libraries throughout the country. In the recent past, the Library has 
undertaken, through such efforts as the National Program for Acquisitions 

King, Gilbert W., and others . Automation and the Library of Congress. 

Washington, Library of Congress, 1963 . 

103 


351-845 0 - 69—8 







and Cataloging and the MARC II system,, certain functions which are prima¬ 
rily directed toward the national library and research community, although 
they may simultaneously carry actual or expected benefits for the Library 
itself. Because conversion of retrospective cataloging data has been 
studied in this report essentially from the viewpoint of its projected 
benefits to the Nation at large, and because this report envisions these 
benefits as a real possibility, funds for research and development efforts 
(viewed as one-time costs rather than part of the ongoing system) should 
be obtained from sources other than the regular budget of the Library of 
Congress. Examples of these costs include (l) design and programming costs 
for a conversion system, ( 2 ) research and experimentation on new techniques 
of conversion (e.g., OCR devices, format recognition) and ( 3 ) funds for a 
study of the problems relating to creation of a true national data store 
by inclusion of holdings of other libraries in the bank of retrospective 
cataloging data. 

Possible sources for funds to carry on this research and develop¬ 
ment work include both private and governmental agencies already active 
in supporting progress in the library and information science fields. 

Distribution of information from the store of retrospective 
cataloging of data, whether this consists solely of Library of Congress 
information or includes holdings of additional libraries should be thought 
of as analogous to distribution of information through the LC Card Division. 
A formula based on such factors as the number of records requested, the 
form (machine-readable or printout) in which information is distributed, 


104 


the data (iC card number, bibliographic citation, or search code) supplied 
by libraries in making requests, the nature of requests in terms of cate¬ 
gories or groups (e.g., by language, date, form of material), should be 
devised to provide fair and reasonable reimbursement to the centralized 
conversion operation and data store to cover the processing of these 
requests. In other words, when the products of the initial conversion 
operation become attractive for users throughout the country and/or when 
the national data store concept becomes operational, a financing plan 
should be instituted to put these operations on a self-sustaining basis. 
Until this is possible, funds must be provided to enable the service to 
be offered to users at a nominal rather than a prorated cost. 

Staffing and space are two additional support considerations 
that must be fully understood. Adequate staff both in quantity and 
quality and sufficient space in which to operate efficiently will be 
essential ingredients to progress in expanding the MARC Distribution Ser¬ 
vice and the conversion of retrospective cataloging. 


105 





Appendix A 

DUPLICATION IN U. S. LIBRARY COLLECTIONS 

This appendix summarizes various studies and reports indicating 
that there is a high degree of overlap among collections in libraries in 
the United States. 

A study of patterns of duplication as they affect union catalogs 
published in 1942 y shows that the number of unique titles each library 
contributes to a union catalog falls off rapidly as each additional library 
is added, and that the number of volumes in a library is positively corre¬ 
lated with the number of unique titles it holds. The study also shows the 
average percent of unique titles found in a regional catalog to be 50. The 
figure of 50 percent represents the relation of the unique titles in the 
region to the total number of titles in the libraries in the region, with¬ 
out regard to the duplication of titles. When the duplication has been 
eliminated, the percentage of unique titles rises to 75. That is, of the 
total number of different titles in the region, 75 percent exist in one copy 

1. Merritt, LeRoy C. The administrative, fiscal, and quantitative aspects 
of the regional union catalog. In Downs, Robert B., ed. Union catalogs 
in the United States. Chicago, American Library Association, 1942. 
p. [31-255. 

106 



only. It was calculated that the number of copies of duplicated books 
actually available in the several regions averages three. Thus, many 
titles are not duplicated at all within certain regions, but those which 
are duplicated may be found on the average in three different libraries in 
a particular region. 

It was estimated that the National Union Catalog holds an average 
of 80.3 percent of the titles held by 11 regional union catalogs and that 
any given regional catalog, on the average, holds only 9*2 percent of the 
titles in the NUC. 

Of the 11 catalogs, only Cleveland and Philadelphia catalogs were 
comparable in size and type of libraries included. The duplication between 
those two catalogs was approximately 40 percent. 

In another portion of the study, Merritt shows relationships among 
the collections of 46 members of the Association of Research Libraries 
according to an "index of distinctiveness." Again, size and distinctive¬ 
ness are positively correlated, or one may say that, in general, the more 
volumes a library holds, the more likely it is to include the holdings of 
other libraries, and the more likely it is to own works that other libraries 
have not acquired. Similarly, the smaller the library, the more likely is 
its collection to be duplicated in the holdings of the larger libraries, 
and the less likely it is to own unique titles. 

A more recent study by Nugent shows that duplication among vari¬ 
ous collections is still high. The results of this study revealed "a high 
degree of commonality in the six [New England State university libraries’] 


107 








collections/'?/ showing, for example, that a random title from one library 
had a 40-percent chance of being present in another randomly selected 
library. When current imprint samples were tested, the figure rose to 47 
percent. One of the conclusions reached is that "this high degree of dupli¬ 
cation will result in more efficient use of shared mass storage in the 
regional center and indicates a high return on cooperative reclassification 
efforts." It was projected that information about each title in the aggre¬ 
gate collections of the six libraries would be useful to about three of the 
libraries and, if only current imprints were to be processed, an average of 
3.35 would be served. 

Further evidence of duplication in the holdings of American 
libraries is provided by the experience of the National Union Catalog. In 
1967 , more than 50 percent of the reports to the National Union Catalog 
Post-195^ Imprints Section were on LC cards and subsequent searching of the 
remainder revealed that 32 percent (of the original 100 percent) were 
covered either by LC cards or reports from other libraries. Thus, only l8 
percent were unique reports even at the time of reporting. By the time that 
a five-year cumulation of the NUC is published, fewer than 10 percent of the 
titles still have only a single location. The percentage of duplication of 
LC records would be substantially higher except for the fact that criteria 
for contributing to NUC reduce reporting in categories of material in which 

2. Nugent, William R. Statistics of collection overlap at the libraries 
of the six New England State universities. Library Resources and 
Technical Services, v. 12, Winter 1968 , 31-36. 


108 



extensive duplication occurs. Similar findings have been presented in 
studies by Dawson^/ and Skipperii/. 

The facts brought out by these studies provide abundant evidence 
that a high degree of duplication exists in the collections of libraries of 
all types. It follows, therefore, that uncoordinated efforts to convert 
retrospective records would result in a costly duplication of effort when 
a multitude of machine-readable records was produced for the same biblio- 
graphic items. In addition, it is highly probable that wide variations in 
bibliographic description would make it difficult to identify many of these 
records as being for the same item (see the following page for examples of 
conflicting reports submitted to the National Union Catalog). 


3^ Dawson, John. The acquisitions and cataloging of research libraries: 
a study of the possibilities for centralized processing. Library 
Quarterly, v. 27, January 1957, 1-22. 

4. Skipper, James. The characteristics of cataloging in research librar¬ 
ies. In Association of Research Libraries. Minutes of the 68 th meet¬ 
ing, January 9, 1966 , New York City. Washington, D.C., 1966 . 

Appendix I. 


109 









ABBREVIATED SAMPLES OF VARIATIONS IN ENTRIES RECEIVED 
BY THE NATIONAL UNION CATAIAG 


NUC entry 

Rao R&gdi, Setumadhava 

A grammar of the Gondhi language.... 


Ameilh, Pierre, bp., d. ca. llOl. 

Le voyage de Gregoire XI...[par] Pierre 
Ronzy.... 


The Economist (London) 

Oxford economic atlas of the world, pre¬ 
pared by the Economist Intelligence Unit 
and the Cartographic Dept, of the Clarendon 
Press.... 


Simmons, Ward F 

Report on the elevated-temperature prop¬ 
erties of stainless steels, prepared by 
Ward F. Simmons... 

"Issued under...the ASTM-ASME Joint 
Committee on Effect of Temperature on 
the Properties of Metals." 

Alexander de Hales, d. 12t-5» 

Alexander Minorita: Expositio in 
Apocalypsim.... 


Institute on Operation and Maintenance of 
School Buildings, Stanford University, 1953- 
Institute an Operation.... 

Another Stanford School Planning Laboratory 
publication. 


Stanford Research Institute, Stanford 
University. 

U. S. tax incentives for private foreign 
investment. Prepared for the Chamber of 
Commerce...[by A. Kenneth Beggs... 


Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 
European Center. 

Les publications officielles et la 
documentation internationale; travaux de 
la conference de documentation r^unie a 
Paris le 29 janvier 1951>--- 


Variations 

Rao, P. Setumadhava. 

Setumadhava Rao, P 

Madhava Rao P Setu 

Amelii, Petrus, patriarch of Alexandria, 
d. It01? 

Ronzy, Pierre 

Petrus Amelii 

Clarendon Press. Economist Intelligence Unit. 

Oxford economic atlas of the world.... 

Oxford University Press. 

ASTM-ASME Joint Committee on Effect of Tem¬ 
perature on the Properties of Metals. 

Joint Committee on Effect of Temperature on 
the Properties of Metals. 

Alexander Alemannicus (Saxo), 15th cent. 

Alexander von Bremen, d. 1271- 

Stanford University. School Planning 
Laboratory. 

Stanford University. Institute on Operation 
and Maintenance of School Buildings. 

Stanford University—School of Education. 

Beggs, Alexander Kenneth, 1913- 

Chamber of Commerce of the United States of 
America. 

Carnegie endowment for international peace. 
Division of intercourse and education. 
European center. 

Conference de Documentation. Paris, 1951- 

International Conference on Documentation, 
Paris, 1951- 


HO 




Appendix B 


ACTUAL AND PLANNED DATA CONVERSION ACTIVITIES IN SELECTED LIBRARIES 
AND THEIR USE OF LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING 


A. Introduction 

This is a report of a study to help in determining the desirabil¬ 
ity and feasibility of a centralized effort to convert retrospective 
catalog records to machine-readable form. The specific intent of this 
study was: 


1 . 


2 . 


3. 



To characterize, both qualitatively and quanti¬ 
tatively, the activities of representative 
American libraries in the conversion of their 
catalog records. 

To ascertain the qualitative and quantitative 
plans of libraries that contemplate catalog 
record conversion activities in the future. 

To characterize the actual use of the catalog 
records of the Library of Congress by other 
libraries. 

To determine the probable use of the machine- 
readable retrospective Library of Congress 
catalog records by libraries other than the 


111 







Library of Congress and the expected use 
of the MARC Distribution Service. 

Seventy libraries participated in the survey. These libraries 
were chosen because they were either engaged in automation activities or 
were believed to be actively planning for them. All types of libraries 
were represented: academic, public, regional processing centers, research, 
school, special, and state. A conplete listing appears at the end of this 
appendix. Sixty of the interviews were by telephone; 10 were conducted at 
the libraries. 

B. Findings 

The following discussion summarizes the findings of the study. 
However, the results are based on such a small sample that no statistically 
valid inferences can be drawn from them. Generalizations can legitimately 
apply only to the specific libraries studied and not to the entire spectrum 
of American libraries. In addition, an exact tabulation of much of the 
data was not possible because each library was allowed to answer in its 
own words. 

The 70 libraries answering this survey can be divided into three 
groups: 4l libraries were currently engaged in a conversion project; 18 
libraries were planning a conversion project to begin within three years; 

11 libraries had no plans to convert any records. The first two groups were 
questioned separately about conversion activities so that comparisons could 
often be made between the groups. All of the libraries were asked about 
their use of Library of Congress cataloging data. For any specific 


112 





activity, only those libraries planning or actually pursuing this activity 
were asked about its execution. Thus for any particular question the 
actual base of responses may be quite small and the base varies often from 
one question to the next. 

1. Types and Forms of Materials 

Of the 4l libraries actually involved in conversion activities, 

12 libraries said that they were converting all their records. Of the 29 
libraries not converting everything, 25 libraries were concentrating on 
records for specific forms or types of publications, predominantly mono¬ 
graphs and/or serials. Twenty-four were concentrating on converting 
imprints falling within specific time spans, almost exclusively for the 
period since i 960 . Ten libraries were converting particular subject 
classes but there were no clear trends in the choice of subject classes. 
Thirteen of the 29 libraries were concentrating on specific languages, and 
of these, approximately three-quarters were concentrating on English lan¬ 
guage works. Ten libraries were using other criteria for determining what 
records to convert, but there were no clear trends in their choices. 

Among the 18 libraries that contemplate but have not yet acti¬ 
vated conversion programs, ten are planning to convert all of their records. 
Of the remaining eight libraries, six are concentrating on a specific time 
span; all but one in the period from 1963 to date. Five libraries plan to 
concentrate on monographic records. There is little interest in subject 
concentration, almost no interest in language concentration, and same 


113 


interest in other criteria of determination. In comparing libraries with 
actual conversion experience with libraries in the planning stages, the 
latter are more ambitious about converting more records with fewer 
limitations. 

2. Quantities of Materials 

The median number of items to be processed by the libraries 
actually involved in conversion activities is 70 , 000 ' to 75^000; the median 
among the libraries that plan to convert is 350,000. The median percent¬ 
age completed by those libraries that have converted is 50 percent after a 
median operating period of two years. With an additional median estimated 
time for completion of one year, the total median conversion time becomes 
three years. It is revealing that the median estimated period for comple¬ 
tion among those libraries that have not yet begun their conversion activi¬ 
ties is only one-and-a half years, despite the fact that the median esti¬ 
mated number of items to be processed is approximately five times the 
quantity being processed by the libraries that are already converting. 

3. Applications 

The primary stated applications for the combined groups in 
descending order of frequency were (l) book catalogs, (2) catalog cards, 

(3) facilitation of cataloging and acquisition processes, (4) information 
retrieval services, (5) union catalogs, (6) accession lists, (7) circula¬ 
tion control, (8) bibliographies, and (9) serials systems. The experi¬ 
enced libraries tended to favor serials systems and production of catalog 


114 


cards and accession lists. The non-experienced libraries expected auto¬ 
mation to facilitate cataloging, acquisitions, and information retrieval 
services. 

4. Costs and Sources of Funds 

The primary sources of funds for conversion among both actual 
and prospective converters were their own institutions, followed in order 
of frequency by Federal funds. State funds, and grants. Although not 
always clearly identified, it appears that the Federal Government, in at 
least some cases, is the actual or contemplated source of grants. 

Questions of cost were asked only of the experienced libraries. 

Of 10 libraries that were able to respond to a question regarding costs 
for converting a single record, the range was from 48 cents to $2 per 
record, the average being about $1 per record. The amount of editing that 
preceded the input of the record seemed to create the greatest fluctuation 
in cost. From the wide variation in these few cost figures, it is apparent 
that conversion was being done in very different ways and that few (if any) 
of the estimates allowed for overhead or machine costs. 

5. Conversion Methods in Individual Libraries 

Between 55 and 60 percent of both the libraries actively con¬ 
verting and those planning to convert used only library personnel to plan 
and design their conversion project. Approximately five to 10 percent of 
each group relied entirely on outside personnel. The same percentages 
apply when considering the actual operation of the conversion project. 


115 



Approximately 35 percent of the libraries used a combination of library and 
outside personnel. In general, the library explained to the contractor 
what it wanted to accomplish and the contractor provided the technical 
expertise and frequently the equipment. The library was responsible for 
selecting and editing the records to be converted. A majority of the 
actively converting libraries elected to do their own keyboarding while all 
of those planning to convert expected to use outside keypunchers. The 
responsibility of programming was evenly divided between library and outside 
personnel. More than half (65 percent) of the libraries actively convert¬ 
ing have established priorities for conversion; 50 percent of those planning 
to convert have priorities. There were no trends as far as priorities 
chosen except selection of current or rush materials. Approximately 65-75 
percent of. the # libraries edited, tagged, or altered the records prior to 
conversion. At least half of the libraries planned to include all the 
catalog card elements. Approximately three-fourths said that they would 
include additional elements. The most frequent types of additions were 
(l) local control information such as location codes, accession number, 
copy number, or holdings and (2) bibliographical information such as notes 
and annotations or an indication of the language. 

6 . Problems Encountered 

The libraries experienced in conversion were able to cite many 
specific technical problems. Several problems were related to input-- 
choice between paper tape or punch cards, accuracy of the input device, 
conversion of both paper tape and punch cards. A second important problem 

116 


area was related to the very large computer storage required and computer 
file organization. Lesser problems were the need to standardize cataloging 
information from different sources, how to tag and edit catalog records, 
and adaptation of old conputer programs. The libraries planning to con¬ 
vert were primarily concerned with assembling and editing catalog records, 
writing programs, designing a system, and acquiring data processing knowl¬ 
edge. There were relatively few apprehensions regarding hardware. In 
short, the technical problems encountered by the experienced converters 
bear little resemblance to those expressed by the inexperienced libraries, 
a further indication of the need for orientation before attempting actual 
operations. 

In regard to administrative problems, the primary problem 
expressed by both groups centered around personnel. The two major problems 
of the experienced group were lack of required specialized manpower and 
difficulties in coordination and communication between library staff 
members and the data processing specialists. Other problems mentioned were 
assembling the staff and planning the basic structure of the conversion 
project, achieving an even work flow so that the computer was used most 
efficiently, and convincing administrators that conversion was a good idea. 
Among the inexperienced libraries the two primary issues were lack of 
specialized personnel and the conservatism of the user. In addition, the 
inexperienced libraries anticipated problems in coordinating work within 
a network and in dealing with catalogers who dislike automation. 


117 




In addition to the common problem of not enough money, libraries 
experienced with conversion mentioned more specific problems such as money 
for additional staff or outside contractors or enough money to finish con¬ 
version quickly and economically. Several libraries were quite conservative 
in their plans and seemed to make no special effort to fund their conver¬ 
sion activities. The libraries planning to convert wanted to' be sure they 
had adequate funds before they started any conversion project. 

7. Updating and Expansion of Converted File 

Almost 80 percent of the libraries actually involved in conver¬ 
sion activities planned to update their file. The median frequency of 
updating converted records was twice a month. Fifty percent planned to 
enlarge or refine their converted file in some other way. In decreasing 
order of frequency plans for expansion include (l) adding other forms of 
material, (2) making format changes such as building up records to MARC II, 
(3) expanding computer system to include other libraries in a union catalog 
or a network, (4) on-line terminals, ( 5 ) going backward or forward in 
coverage, and (6) adding indexes and fragmenting the file. 

8 . Network Relationships 

In response to questions regarding network relationships, half 
of the libraries in the experienced category stated that their conversion 
activities were related to networks or other interlibrary undertakings. 

Among the inexperienced libraries, two-thirds contemplated affiliation with 
networks. One interesting finding in regard to network relationships is 


118 


that two-thirds of the experienced libraries in the university/research 
category are not involved in network or related interlibrary cooperative 
endeavors at least insofar as their conversion activities are concerned. 

9- MARC Distribution Service 

Fifty of the entire 70 libraries stated that they would use the 
MARC Distribution Service; 12 stated that they would not; and eight were 
not sure. The prospective subscribers planned to use the MARC tapes as a 
source of cataloging data for local conversion projects and the production 
of catalog cards and book catalogs. Diverse reasons were given for not 
using the distribution service: the service was thought to be too expen¬ 
sive for libraries with small collections; local conversion of records 
would be cheaper; the coverage of the service was too limited; and 
printed LC catalog cards could be obtained faster. 

| 

10. Use of Elements on Library of Congress Catalog Cards 

Of the 70 libraries studied, 64 used Library of Congress cards or 
proof sheets. Only one library said it did not change any of the catalog 
cards received. All but three of 10 basic elements on the cards were used 
by more than half of the libraries, the three exceptions being the Library 
of Congress class numbers, the LC book or Cutter number, and the Dewey 
Decimal number. All of the elements, when used, were altered in a signifi¬ 
cant percentage of instances (30-60 percent). The median percentage of 
1 entries altered in some way was eight percent, although this figure ranged 
! from less than one percent to 100 percent. Eleven of the 64 responding 

119 


351-845 0 - 69—9 




libraries stated they made some alterations on every catalog entry received. 
The most frequently changed elements were (l) series entries, (2) subject 
headings, (3) various features of descriptive cataloging, (4) LC class 
number, (5) form of main entry, and (6) choice of added author entries, 
in that order. 

It is highly significant that 1 6 libraries said none of the 
changes they made were essential and their libraries could operate without 
them. On the other hand, five said all the changes they made were essen¬ 
tial. The most frequently mentioned essential changes were classification 
or book number (16 libraries), form of main entry (nine), imprint (five), 
subject headings (four). 

Regarding additions to LC cards, as opposed to changes, 43 of the 
64 libraries that use LC cards stated that they add items to them, the 
median percentage of entries to which additions are made being five percent. 
The primary additions (in decreasing order) are (l) notes and annotations, 
(2) subject headings, (3) series tracings or added entries, (4) title 
entries, (5) additional copies, and (6) location symbols. Fourteen librar¬ 
ies said none of the additions were essential and four said they all were. 

11. Prospective Use of a Service for Retrospective Records 

In response to questions regarding probable use of retrospective 
Library of Congress catalog records in machine-readable form, 5 6 of the 
libraries stated that they would use these records, 10 said they would not, 
and four did not know. If a service to supply these records did not begin 
for two or three years, a small number of libraries said that they would 


120 


not use it and an increasing number expressed doubt about using it. 

In general, the projected applications were the same as those for 
which the libraries themselves were converting or planning to convert. The 
prime additional applications for converted retrospective LC records were 

(1) creation of data banks for network or information retrieval systems, 

(2) use in reclassification or recataloging, ( 3 ) use in cataloging of 
older materials, and (4) expansion of processing services to area libraries. 

The advantages of a centralized service were thought to be 
elimination of the need for libraries to do their own converting and 
elimination of duplication of effort; reduction in cost and time of con¬ 
version; broadening of the available data base, both nationally and locally; 
a decrease in the need for original cataloging; simplification of reclassi¬ 
fication; promotion of standardization. 

The following problems in the operation of such a service were 
anticipated: (l) knowing which records had been converted and matching 
them to their own collection (searching time), (2) questions of systems 
design permitting incorporation of retrospective records at the local level, 

(3) costs involved in participation in general or having to buy many more 

: titles than are in their library, (4) possible delays in the implementation 
of the service, (5) problems related to incompatibility of cataloging rules 
land practices, and (6) training, adaptation, or recruitment of operating 
staff. However, 18 libraries said they did not foresee any disadvantages. 

Regarding the anticipated effects of the service on participating 
' libraries, 13 said it would reduce their conversion costs and increase 


121 



speed. Nine said it would have no effect because they could not wait or 
were already finished. Ten stated that they would hold up or eliminate 
their own programs or plans for conversion, depending on when the service 
became available. Five others believed that the service would help them to 
standardize their catalog record formats. Still others stated that the 
availability of the service would permit them to convert when it might not 
otherwise be feasible to do so or would allow them to catalog more with the 
same staff. 

It was anticipated by six libraries that such a service would 
lead to a reorganization of their conversion project. They surmised the 
machine records for LC data would be obtained centrally and that local 
libraries might concentrate on records not covered by the service. 

Eighteen libraries said they would attempt to use machine-readable records 
with fewer changes than they make on LC printed cards. 

As for priorities for retrospective conversion, the responses 
showed a strong correlation between the categories of records being con¬ 
verted or planned for conversion and what the libraries wanted the pro¬ 
posed RECON project to convert. In both cases, the emphasis was on 
English language materials (primarily monographic or serial) in reverse 
chronological order. There was no clear-cut preference as to subject 
priorities. 

These views must be assessed in the light of the fact that the 
survey focused on the small number of libraries actually engaged in con¬ 
ducting or planning automation projects. Libraries that venture into this 


122 






area in the next five to 10 years might have different ideas about a ser¬ 
vice to supply retrospective catalog records in machine-readable form. 

C. Libraries Represented in the Survey 

Information relating to the following libraries was obtained by 
local visits: 


Claremont Colleges 

Harvard University 

Los Angeles County Public Library 

Medical Library Center of New York 

Montgomery County (Maryland) Public Schools 

National Library of Medicine 

New York State Library 

State University of New York at Buffalo 

Tulsa City-County Library System 

Yale University 

Information relating to the following libraries was obtained by 


telephone: 


Albuquerque Processing Center 

Argonne National Laboratory 

Bell Telephone Laboratories 

California State Library 

Cleveland Public Library 

Columbia University 

Connecticut State Library 

Cornell University 

Dartmouth College 

Enoch Pratt Free Library 

Georgia Institute of Technology 

Illinois State Library 

Indiana University 

Johns Hopkins University 

Kansas State Libraries 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

Michigan State University 

Nassau Library System 

National Agricultural Library 

Nevada Center for Cooperative Library Services 

New York Public Library 


123 





Ohio College Library Center 
Ohio State University 
Oklahoma State Library 
Oregon State Library 
Pennsylvania State University 
Providence Public Library 
Purdue University 

Redstone Scientific Information Center 
Rice University 

Santa Clara County Free Library 

Simon Fraser University 

Smithsonian Institution Libraries 

Stanford University 

Toronto Central Public Library 

U.S. Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories 

University of British Columbia 

University of California, Berkeley 

University of California at Los Angeles 

University of Chicago 

University of Colorado 

University of Connecticut 

University of Kansas 

University of Massachusetts 

University of Michigan 

University of Missouri 

University of New Hampshire 

University of Pennsylvania 

University of Pittsburgh 

University of Rhode Island 

University of Toronto 

University of Vermont 

University of Victoria 

University of Washington 

Upstate Medical Center Library, State University of New York 

Washington State Library 

Washington State University 

Washington University Medical Library 

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction 

Yonkers (New York) Board of Education 


124 


Appendix C 


SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWS WITH CONSULTANTS 


A. Introduction 

The RECON Working Task Force interviewed 27 persons with experi¬ 
ence in the field of library automation or in other fields of significance 
to the study. The opinions of the consultants were sought both as individ¬ 
uals and as representatives of particular organizations or types of organi¬ 
zations. The American Library Association, commercial services, research 
and development corporations, and a wide range of libraries were repre¬ 
sented. Interviews were conducted in various locations with individuals or 
small groups by one or two members of the working task force. The list of 
persons interviewed is given at the end of this appendix. Their opinions 
are synthesized in the following pages. 

B. Desirability of a Retrospective Conversion Program 

An overwhelming majority of consultants favored an undertaking to 
convert a national data base of catalog records into a standard machine- 
readable format. Such a data base would: 

1. Facilitate the communication and the sharing of biblio¬ 
graphic information by virtue of a common format. 


125 








2. Allow libraries participating in cooperative 
groups or networks to create a common data 
base conforming to recognized guidelines. 

3. Facilitate retrospective acquisitions work 
in the same way that the MARC Distribution 
Service will aid current acquisitions work. 

4. Provide "instant" catalogs for new libraries. 

5. Provide a valuable data base for research 
purposes. 

6 . Facilitate the publication of subject bibliog¬ 
raphies . 

7. Allow libraries to post to a national data base, 
a procedure resulting in a true union catalog. 

One consultant expressed the view that such a project should not 
be undertaken, at least at this time, because: 

1. The problems of organizing and accessing large 
files have not been resolved. 

2. Large categories of items, e.g., nonroman alphabet 
languages, cannot yet be processed. 

3. Experience with MARC II should be gained before 
extending its use retrospectively. 

4. The filing problems have not been solved. 

5. Available funds should be expended on current 
MARC Distribution Service. 


126 


C. Centralized or Decentralized Conversion 


The consultants were unanimous in recommending that conversion he 
done centrally. They felt that the requirements of uniformity, in both the 
catalog data and the machine format, and of economy of conversion dictate 
centralized operations. 

Centralized editing for the MARC format would be a minimal 
requirement for uniformity, in the opinion of one consultant. All other 
consultants recommended centralization of the entire production operation 
in order to avoid duplication of software and to make the best use of 
manpower and equipment. 

Consultants from both university and public libraries expressed 
the views that cooperating libraries would accept Library of Congress 
cataloging as a common data base. All agreed on the desirability of using 
the LC catalog record for the source record, realizing that there remains 
the problem of titles not covered by LC cataloging. Use of the LC catalog 
record as the source should also provide the necessary data base for the 
LC Card Division's automated card production project. 

D. Conversion Strategy 
1. Choice of Materials 

Priority of printed materials over nonbook materials was assumed 
by the working task force and upheld by the consultants. It was further 
assumed that the National Serials Data Program would take care of serials 
and that the retrospective conversion project would concentrate on 
monographs. 


127 




2. Source File 


As discussed elsewhere in the report, three LC files are candi¬ 
dates for conversion: the Official Catalog, the shelflist, and the Card 
Division record set. 

One consultant from a major university considered the Official 
Catalog the only satisfactory source; another advised conversion from the 
record set and updating from the Official Catalog. A classified or subject 
approach, favored by some consultants, would obviously have to be based on 
the shelflist. 

3. Entire File or Selected Subfiles 

One consultant warned against overfragmentation of the conver¬ 
sion effort and expressed a preference for conversion of the entire file 
if it could be accomplished within a fairly short term. In general, 
however, consultants suggested a phased approach based on (l) language, 

(2) time, (3) subject, or (4) level of use. All agreed that any subset of 
the entire file must be readily definable (e.g., English language records 
back to i 960 ) so that users would know what records it was likely to 
provide. 

One consultant recommended concentrating on the less common 
languages, e.g., Arabic, Sanskrit (in romanized form, necessarily). The 
remaining consultants assigned high priority to English and common roman 
alphabet languages. 

Several consultants from university and research libraries 
expressed a preference for a subject approach. One felt that the subject 


128 


approach would have great political and financial benefits in allowing the 
production of comprehensive catalogs as each subject was completed. 

The essence of the recommendation of several consultants was 
that, if a subject approach were to be taken, different time periods 
should be converted for different subjects. For example, science materials 
become obsolete so rapidly that retrospective conversion has less value 
than in seme other areas. One danger here is that certain classics or 
standard works may be missed if a time element is imposed. 

Consultants from the public library area and from commercial 
firms, as well as some others speaking in a private capacity, expressed a 
preference for the conversion of high-interest modules, i.e., bibliog¬ 
raphies or standard lists of most-used materials. Examples suggested were 
Books in Print (BIP) and Books for College Libraries (BCL). Such a basis 
might, in the consultants’ opinion, make the best use of the dollars 
invested, since its utility for new libraries and for retrospective 
acquisition would indicate a large prospective market. 

Some users have already encountered practical problems that 
lessen the utility of both BIP and BCL as selection guides for extracting 
a subset of bibliographic records. The former contains no Library of 
Congress card numbers and the numbers in the latter frequently point to LC 
entries that do not correspond with the book in hand. Richard Abel & Co., 
Inc., has been converting the 32,000 BCL records at the rate of 2,500 to 
3,000 titles a week. About 50 percent of the BCL titles currently in 
print do not match the catalog records. This degree of mismatch is 


129 




presumably due to the high percentage of titles on the list that are in the 
public domain and are therefore often reprinted. The Abel Company concludes 
that data conversion cannot be done independently of the book, at least 
for titles likely to be in print or frequently reprinted. 

In summary, the consensus seemed to be that the most used 
records command the highest conversion priority. Therefore the first to 
be produced should be recent English language titles, with recent titles in 
the common roman alphabet languages next in turn. The leading exponent of 
the subject approach suggested a pilot project of the last five years of 
English language titles combined with a long-term subject approach. 

E. Levels of Completeness for Converted Bibliographic Records 

Two considerations evoked discussion of different levels of 
completeness for the converted retrospective record: (l) different levels 
of record identification might be attained by different conversion tech¬ 
niques and (2) libraries choosing to convert their own records might 
convert only part of a bibliographic record with the possibility that 
different institutions would elect different parts of the record. 

Obviously, such a partial record would have broader utility if it conformed 
to at least a minimum national standard. 

One varied group of consultants defined four possible levels of 
the converted record: 

Level 1: Full MARC editing with book in hand. 

Level 2: All that can be done without book in 
hand. 


130 





Level 3: 


Full bibliographic data with minimal tagging 
(enough to allow formulating a book catalog). 

Level 4 : Brief bibliographic records, with sufficient 
tagging for circulation records, brief entry- 
book catalogs, etc. 

An illustration of the use of two of these levels is the pro¬ 
posed conversion of 700,000 titles by the Institute of Library Research 
for a five-year book catalog supplement for eight campuses of the 
University of California. Stage 1 of the conversion would create a 
level 3 record from which the catalog would be printed; stage 2 would 
augment the record by format recognition to a level 2 record for the 
permanent machine record. i/ The institute anticipates a saving of 50 
percent of the cost of manual editing, even if the algorithms for 
automatic field recognition work imperfectly. 

There was a wide spectrum of opinion on the subject of levels 
of record completeness. Some held that the fullest possible tagging 
should be accomplished by one or another means for future searching, for 
interchange, or as a backup for briefer records, which will be those 
actually used by most libraries. Others saw the brief record (level 4 ) 
as facilitating the location of items in a network and creation of brief 
book catalogs. One university-based consultant disapproved of establish¬ 
ing lower levels, while visualizing full MARC editing as a gargantuan task. 
He saw difficulty in enforcing the MARC II standard (level 2), if 

TT See appendix G for a discussion of format recognition. 


131 



different levels were defined, and would leave development of lesser levels 
up to the individual library. 

With one exception, no one advised going back to the book. One 
consultant suggested a cheap machine conversion plus human editing with the 
book for a product that would be expensive but would equal current MARC. 

He further commented that searching was the only real reason for conversion. 

F. Local Catalog Records 

One group of consultants recommended that after the LC files 
have been converted, the non-LC records of three or four major research 
libraries be converted and added to the national data base. This would 
presumably pick up the major portion of materials not cataloged by LC. 

One consultant expressed the opinion that the National Union 
Catalog is not of sufficient quality to be converted without extensive 
editing. 

The LC card number was singled out as the most useful access 
point or "order number" for a given bibliographic record. Where an LC 
card number is unknown, a search code constructed for the author, title, 
and other data elements could be used to retrieve the desired record. Thus, 
the ordering of a retrospective machine-readable bibliographic record is 
essentially the exact counterpart of the current system for ordering LC 
printed cards. However, one consultant doubted that the technology now 
exists for distribution of records on demand or on the basis of subscriber 
profiles. 


132 



A basic purpose of the library survey described in appendix B 
was to identify the projected use of retrospective records. These results 
were supplemented by comments made by the consultants who spoke for their 
own libraries. 

Pertinent to the extent of use and/or the cost of use of the 
retrospective record is the degree to which the record would be accepted 
or would be locally changed. Several consultants were of the opinion that 
many libraries would accept a standard record and give up local practices. 
Others see their libraries continuing to change the record to conform to 
local practices. 

G. Cost 

Costs were discussed in a variety of contexts. One consultant 
from a commercial service saw the retrospective conversion project pro¬ 
viding significant cost savings. Others commented on the cost of obtain¬ 
ing and changing the record. 

One group recommended that the creation of a national machine- 
readable record should be funded by the government and/or foundations 
whether the records originated within the Library of Congress or other 
major libraries. The same group added that users, including commercial 
users, should pay only the duplication and distribution costs of the 
record just as users are now charged for printed cards and the MARC 
Distribution Service. Operators of commercial services expressed the 
desire to have a free hand in the exploitation of a national data base to 
generate a variety of products and services for sale to libraries. 


133 




H. Consultants and Their Affiliations 


Richard Abel 

Richard Abel and Company, Inc. 
Portland, Oregon 

Donald V. Black 

System Development Corporation 

Santa Monica, California 

Ruth Blake 

Tulsa City-County Library System 
Tulsa, Oklahoma 

Charles P. Bourne 
Information General, Inc. 

Palo Alto, California 

Ritvars Bregzis 

University of Toronto Library 

Toronto, Ontario 

Thomas K. Burgess 
Washington State University 
Computer Center 
Pullman, Washington 

G. R. Campbell 
University of Victoria 
Victoria, British Columbia 

Don S. Culbertson 
Information Science and 
Automation Division, ALA 
Chicago, Illinois 

Richard De Gennaro 
School of Library Science 
University of Southern California 
Los Angeles, California 

James L. Dolby 
R & D Consultants Company 
Los Altos, California 


George F. Farrier 

Santa Clara County Free Library 

San Jose, California 

Paul J. Fasana 

Columbia University Libraries 
New York, New York 

Don Gill 

Los Angeles County Public Library 
Los Angeles, California 

Robert C. Goodwell 

Los Angeles County Public Library 

Los Angeles, California 

Phoebe F. Hayes 

Bibliographical Center for Research 
Rocky Mountain Region 
Denver, Colorado 

Robert M. Hayes 
Institute of Library Research 
University of California at 
Los Angeles 

Los Angeles, California 
Joe Hewitt 

University of Colorado Libraries 
Boulder, Colorado 

Richard Johnson 
Honnold Library 
Claremont Colleges 
Claremont, California 

Robin McDonald 

University of British Columbia 
Library 

Vancouver, British Columbia 



Mrs. Sydney G. Marcu 
New York Public Library 
Branch Libraries 
New York, New York 

Foster M. Palmer 
Harvard University 
Cambridge, Massachusetts 

Eugene Petriwsky 

University of Colorado Libraries 

Boulder, Colorado 

David G. Remington 
Bro-Dart, Inc. 

Williamsport, Pennsylvania 


Mrs. Phyllis A. Richmond 
River Campus Science Library 
University of Rochester Library 
Rochester, New York 

Frederick H. Ruecking, Jr. 
Fondren Library 
Rice University 
Houston, Texas 

Ralph M. Shoffner 
Institute of Library Research 
University of California 
Berkeley, California 

Charles H. Stevens 
Project INTREX 

Massachusetts Institute of Tech¬ 
nology 

Cambridge, Massachusetts 




135 











Appendix 1) 


LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG RECORDS: 

PAST AND FUTURE 

This appendix gives figures for the number of catalog records 
produced by the Library of Congress from 1898 through 1968 and projections 
of anticipated cataloging workloads from 1969 through June 1976. The data 
are grouped by the predominant language of the record or, in a few cases, 
by the type of material cataloged (e.g., music, serials). 

The figures for the retrospective records were derived from LC 
Card Division data on the total number of cards issued annually in each 
card series. More than 60 different series have been issued since 1898 
but the regular (unlettered) series comprises 75 percent of all cards 
issued since that date. Although some of the series are restricted to 
particular languages (e.g., C for Chinese) or types of material (e.g., Fi 
for films), the vast majority have no such limitation. Therefore, to 
arrive at the groupings shown in the following tables, it was necessary to 
estimate what proportion of the cards fell in each of the categories. The 
estimates were based on the characteristics of the special card series, 
analysis of several samples of the regular series, and educated guesses 
about the coverage of LC cataloging with respect to languages and types of 


156 


material at various periods. Despite the nebulous origins of these figures, 
it is believed that they are sufficiently accurate for the purposes of the 
RECON study. 

The projections of cataloging workloads through June 197& were 
derived from a Processing Department estimate for fiscal 1969 which gave 
almost all of the required groupings. In anticipation of a steady increase 
in acquisitions, the figures were incremented 5 percent each year thereafter. 
Since the figures were rounded to the nearest thousand, however, the change 
from year to year is not always uniform. 


137 








Table D.l—Retrospective records and anticipated cataloging production (in thousands) 

by language or form, 1898 -June 1976 























Table D. 2—Proposed workloads (in thousands) for the MAPC Distribution Service, 

by language or form, April 1969-June 1976 


i—i 

ft 

C 

Eh 


UN VO 
4 4 

4 VO 


-4- un 
4 4 

4VO 


KN4- 
4 4 

4VO 


CVi kn 
4 4 

4VQ 


H OJ 
4 4 

4 vo 


O H 

4 4 

4vo 


on o 

vo 4 
4 vo 


ON ON 

vo vo 
4- vo 


o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 


ft 

u 

o 

fc*0 

0 

-p 

o3 

o 


CO 

LTV 

LTV 


o 

ON 


vo 

CO 


OJ 

00 


CO 

4 


4- 

4 


I—I 

4 


4 

vo 


ft 

CO 
•H 
I—I 

bo 

£ 

ft 


KN 

VO 

KN 


CO 

UN 


LfN 

LTV 


KN 

LTN 


o 

LTV 


CO 

4- 


VO 

-4 


KN 

-4 


UN 

ON 


OJ 

KN 


KN 


ON 

OJ 


CO 

OJ 


VO 

OJ 


UN 

OJ 


-4 

OJ 


co 
£ 
O 
•H 
-P 
cti 
O 
•H 
i—I 

ft 

ft 

CO 

•H 

ft 

bO 

p 

ft 

P 

0 

ft 

-P 

O 


ON 

KN 

4 


KN 

-4 


vo 

KN 


O 

KN 


KN 
OJ 
i—I 


4 


O 

ON 


-P 

0 

ft 

cc5 

ft 

ft 

i—I 

c6 


O 

ft 


i—I 

VO 


UN 


S' 


-4 

O 


ON 

ON 


-4 

ON 


O 

ON 


I I 


I I 


P 

0 

03 

ft 

P 

ctf 

0 

o 

P 


O 

ft 


CO 

OJ 


CO 

OJ 


4 

OJ 


vo 

OJ 


-4 

OJ 


KN 

OJ 


-P 

0 

■§ 

% 

«5 


O 

P 

P 

0 

ft 

ft 

O 


VO OJ 4- 

4- UN ON 

OJ H 


4" H 
4 4- 


O ON 
4 KN 


KN 

KN 


KN 


4 4 0 
VO KN KN 


UV 

KN 


UN 

KN 


I I I 


ft 

0 

■8 

§ 

«5 

P 

I 

O 

& 

O 

ft 


o 

t 

«3 

i—I 

CO 


P 

1 


O 

p 

p 

0 

ft 

ft 

o 


4 OJ UN 
KN 4- ON 

I I 


O 

KN 


ON 

OJ 


ON 


ON 


OJ 


O 

OJ 


4 CO ON 

OJ ft 


VO 

OJ 


u\ 

OJ 


CO 00 


CO 


4 
i—I 


co 

£ 

Ei 

O 

ft 

p 

0 

ft 

ft 

o 


o 

•H 

CO 

ft 


co 


o 

•H 

ft 

P 

< 


o 

co 

vo 


4 

KN 

KN 


OJ 

KN 


s 

KN 


OJ 

VO 

(V 


OJ 


ft 


4 

VO 


o 


P 

ft 

O 

EH 


















Table D.J—Workloads (in thousands) for retrospective conversion and proposed MARC Distribution Service, 

by language or form 


i 

CO O VO 
on q t- 
GO 3 ON 

H 4 H 



S-g 

co 



CO ON 
ON LTN 
CO ON 

i—I P 


u 

o 

bO 

<D 

P 

cti 

O 


o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 


CVJ 

IN- 

VO 

•N 

OJ 


£ 


KN 


VO 
VO 
KN CVJ 


P 

CO 

•rH 

rH 

bO 

3 

w 


$ 

CO 


CO KN UN 

LTN VO ON 

LPv KN rH 


Ph O p- 

i—I O rH 

H LPv VO 

*v «v 

CVJ P 


O 

3 


CO p- p- 

CVJ KN ON 

IN- CVJ p- 




ON 

VO 

ON 


3 

P 


co 

£ 

O 

•rH 

-p 

<a 

o 

•H 

rH 

P< 

P 

CO 

•H 

iH 

bO 

3 

w 

<u 

p 

-p 

o 


IN- 

CO 


CVJ 


CO 

p- 

P 


O IN- 

ON ON 

VO -sl- 


ON P 
KN rH 
IN- VO 


CO 

3 


ON 


ON 

VO 

KN 


co 

P 

!N- 

rH 

UN 

vo 

p 

CO 

KN 

CO 

CVJ 

UN 

LfN 

KN 

r —1 

- 4 " 

CVI 

cu 


o 

00 

CVJ 

p- 

KN 

KN 

ON 

KN 

ON 


ON 

VO 

CVI 

CVJ 

P 






tN- 
o ON 

IN-- H 
ON 


-P 

<U 

■3 

% 

rH 

aJ 


O 

K 


£ 

4 


P 

a> 

•8 

% 

o5 


O 

<U 

P 

8 


CVJ 

o 


O P 

IN- LTN 

LPv -P 


VD 

p- 

CVJ 


CVJ 

LTN 


P 

<U 

s 

a5 


O 

S 


p- 

ON 


LfN CO IN- 

C— rH LPv 

IN- p- KN 


CVJ 

IN¬ 

S' 

£ 

3 

P 

o 

t 

A 

CO 


hi 

KN 

tN- 

s 

s 

5 


p 

< 1 ) 

P 

I 

a3 


O 

d 

<d 

P 

8 


O tN- 

LPv ON 
p- 


P 

O 

CVJ 


IN- CVI 

3 


LfN 

ON 


KN LfN 

H LfN 

KN 




C- 

LPv 


LfN 

LfN 


rH 

IN- 


VO 

LfN 


UN 

KN 


H) 


"■Si 


tN- 

s 


IN- 3 

ON P 


1 

b 

<H 

CD 

P 

P 

O 


$ 

■3 


o 

•H 

W 

i 


CO 


O 

•H 

P 

3 

< 


CVJ 

LfN 


CVJ 

LfN 

rH 


KN 


P 

3 


CO 
I—I 

cd 

•H 

a; 

co 


o 

fOy 

KN 

•N 

VO 


o 

co 

vo 


o 

LfN 

VO 


CVJ 

p- 

LfN 


P 

•V 

KN 


P 

aJ 

P 

O 

EH 


Proposed beginning date of MARC Distribution Service for each category is shown in parentheses. 














Appendix E 


CHANGES IN LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARDS: 
THEIR EXTENT, METHOD, AND TYPESi/ 


A. The Problem 

Catalog records are never immune from change as long as they are 
part of a living catalog. Regardless of their age or insignificance, they 
may be affected by the cataloging of other items and thus are always sus¬ 
ceptible to alteration. In the Library of Congress, a change may result in 
a revised reprinting of the record, or it may be made by hand in one or 
more of the card catalogs. Since catalog maintenance is a heavy chore in 
the traditional system however it is done, it may be expected to constitute 
a significant workload in keeping a file of machine-readable records up to 
date. 

The present study has a dual purpose. First, it attempts to 
quantify the workload of updating so that allowance can be made for the 
staff and machine time required to cope with it in the MARC system. Second, 
the study seeks to show the extent of difference between the Card Division 
record set and the Official Catalog for cards of various ages. 

Originally prepared by the Technical Processes Research Office of the 
Library of Congress for internal use. 


141 





To satisfy the first requirement, the study seeks a basis for 
estimating what proportion of a given body of catalog records might be 
changed in a specified period by analyzing random samples of catalog cards 
produced at various intervals during the past 30 years. Although the 
policies governing some of these changes are no longer in effect, it is 
believed that the findings give a useful indication of what may be expected 
in the future. 

The second point (the difference between the record set and the 
Official Catalog) has not previously been studied. Persons connected with 
cataloging are well aware that the two files are far from being identical 
but the extent of the difference has never been quantified. Since the 
record set (or its equivalent in the form of stock cards) has been 
suggested as the source for retrospective records that may be converted to 
machine-readable form, information about the difference is crucial to 
evaluating the adequacy of this approach. 

B. Methodology 

What mattered in this study was whether a catalog record had been 
changed after its initial printing. To estimate this proportion for 
records of various ages, five random samples were drawn from the regular 
card series for the years 1938, 1948, 1958, 1966, and 1967. The cards for 
the two most recent years were chosen because the volume of short-range 
updating is most relevant to immediate planning for the MARC system. The 
three earlier groups were chosen to permit estimation of the rate of 
change as catalog records age. Addendum 1 describes the considerations in 


142 



selecting the regular card series for investigation, the determination of 
sample sizes, the degree of reliability and precision obtained, and the 
method of generating the samples. 

After stock cards were obtained, each of the five samples was 
divided into three language categories: English; other roman alphabet 
languages; and nonroman alphabet languages. Cards were assigned to these 
categories on the basis of the language that predominated in the body of 
the entry. The results are shown in table E.l. 


Table E.l—Language categories!/in five samples of Library of Congress cards, by card series 


Card series 

All languages 

English 

Other 

alphabet 

roman 

languages 

Nonroman 

alphabet languages 

Number 

Percent 

Number 

Percent 

Number 

Percent 

Number 

Percent 

1967 

381 

100.0 

158 

41.5 

166 

43.5 

57 

15.0 

1966 

443 

100.0 

208 

46.9 

178 

40.2 

57 

12.9 

1958 

351 

100.0 

155 

44.1 

115 

32.8 

81 

23.1 

1948 

459 

100.0 

248 

54.0 

166 

36.2 

45 

9.8 

1938 

523 

100.0 

352 

67.3 

166 

31-7 

5 

1.0 


1. Cards were assigned to a language category on the basis of the language predominating in the body of 
the entry. 

The language division was primarily to guard against the possi¬ 


bility that differences in the composition of the samples might have an 
effect on the extent of change. The subsequent analysis indicated that 
this was not a problem and, in any event, the distribution of language 
categories seemed appropriate to the periods, with the possible exception 
of the high proportion of nonroman titles in 1958 sample. 

The language groups also offered some opportunity to determine 
whether the proportion of change differed among languages. It should be 


143 















noted, however, that the initial sample sizes are not large enough to 
invest the analysis of the subsamples with any great reliability. 

After this preliminary analysis, the stock cards for all five 
samples were searched in the Official Catalog and the 1948, 1966, and 19^7 
samples were also searched in the shelflist. When a stock card differed 
from the official main entry or the shelflist contained copy information, 
the variant information was noted on the stock card for later analysis. 

Of course, in tabulating changes, a revised reprint was counted even when 
the stock card and the official main entry had the same information. 

C. Findings 
1. Extent of Change 

The analysis of changes affecting the groups of sample cards 
reveals striking evidence of both the extent of change and its persistence 
over long periods. A study of table E.2 suggests that the rate of change 
may be higher in the first years of the life of a group of catalog records, 
but after 10 years the rate seems to stabilize at one percent a year. 
Investigation of samples of older catalog records will be required before 
it is possible to establish at what point the trend line shown in figure 
E.l tends to level off. 

On the basis of this analysis, it is estimated that between 
4.5*2.0 percent of catalog records put in machine-readable form will have 
to be updated in the first year. In view of the fact that the initial 
input to the MARC system will comprise only English language titles, which 
seem to be subject to more immediate change, it would seem prudent to 


144 



Table E.2--Extent of change in five samples of Library of Congress cards 
by card series and language category 


Card series and 
language category 


Total 

number 


Not changed 


Changed 


Number 


Percent 


Number 


Percent 


1967 

381 

364 

95-5 

17 

4.5 

English 

158 

149 

94.3 

9 

5.7 

Other roman alphabet 
language s 

166 

159 

95-8 

7 

4.2 

Nonroman alphabet 
languages 

57 

56 

98.2 

1 

1.8 

1966 

443 

4 16 

93.9 

27 

6.1 

English 

208 

190 

91.3 

18 

8.7 

Other roman alphabet 
languages 

178 

172 

9 6.6 

6 

3-4 

Nonroman alphabet 
languages 

57 

54 

94.7 

3 

5.3 

•1958 

551 

273 

77.8 

78 

22.2 

English 

155 

111 

71.6 

44 

28.4 

Other roman alphabet 
languages 

Lf\ 

rH 

rH 

96 

83.5 

19 

16.5 

Nonroman alphabet 
languages 

81 

66 

81.5 

15 

18.5 

1948 

459 

515 

68.6 

144 

31.4 

English 

248 

157 

63.3 

91 

36.7 

Other roman alphabet 
languages 

166 

129 

77-7 

37 

22.3 

Nonroman alphabet 
languages 

45 

29 

64.4 

16 

35.6 

1958 

523 

304 

58.1 

219 

41.9 

English 

552 

202 

57-4 

150 

42.-6 

Other roman alphabet 
languages 

166 

99 

59.6 

67 

40.4 

Nonroman alphabet 
languages 

5 

5 

60.0 

2 

40.0 


145 






















45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 


Figure E.l—Percentage of change in 
five samples of LC printed cards 



I 


1967 1966 


1958 


1948 


1938 


146 



assume that the higher figure is more accurate. It is worth noting, 
however, that the differences among language groups seem to be equalized 
in the long run. 

In considering the significance of the findings on extent of 
change, two contradictory points should be kept in mind. On one hand, 
policies governing changes have been modified from time to time during the 
long history of Library of Congress cataloging. Thus, to the extent this 
is true, a study of past changes is an imperfect guide to the future. 
Particularly important is the fact that the application of the Anglo- 
American cataloging rules now makes it unnecessary to revise a corporate 
heading to show the latest form of name. 

On the other hand, it was apparent that many of the cards had 
been changed on more than one occasion. No attempt was made to tally 
these instances because it was not always possible to determine when they 
occurred. It may be said, however, that the true workload of updating 
represented by these samples was greater than table E.2 reveals. While it 
cannot be asserted that these conditions offset one another, for the 
purposes of prediction they do have a counter-balancing effect. 

2. Methods of Change 

Changes in LC catalog records may result in revised reprints or 
they may be limited to typed or handwritten additions and corrections in 
the Library’s own catalogs. Revised reprints are stimulated primarily by 
changes in main entry, title, or other elements necessary for correct 
identification of the book. A complete list of the criteria for revised 


147 




reprints appears in Processing Department Memorandum No. 31 (see 
addendum 2). 

The restrictions on revised reprinting have been imposed for 
administrative reasons; they do not constitute a judgment that other kinds 
of changes are unimportant. Changes in added and subject entries, contents 
notes, classification numbers, etc., are all essential to the integrity of 
the catalog records they affect, and plans to convert retrospective records 
to machine-readable form must take such changes into account. 

Figure E.2 shows the proportion of change by each method in the 
five samples. The sum of the two proportions for each sample equals the 
percentage of change shown in table E.2. The enormous spread between the 
proportion of manual changes and the proportion of revised reprints in the 
1938 sample apparently results from differences in policies about correct¬ 
ing catalog records. 

In all but the latest sample, the majority of changes on catalog 
cards in the sairple did not result in revised reprints. Thus there is no 
doubt that the records in the Official Catalog are significantly different 
from the cards in the record set. 

3. Types of Change 

Although no claim can be made for the statistical reliability of 
the data on types of change, table E.3 gives an indication of the distribu¬ 
tion of changes with respect to the cataloging data elements affected. 

Note that this analysis is based on the aggregate number of changes, not 
the number of records changed. In tabulating these data, one change was 


ibQ 


40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 


Figure E. 2—Percentage of changes by general 
"types in five samples of LC printed cards 



149 


1966 


1958 


1948 


1938 





CO 

d 

d 

cd 

o 


d 

O 

o 

ft 

O 


u 

d 

ft 

•H 

ft 

ft 

o 

CO 

a) 

i—1 

i 4 

cd 

co 

0 

> 

•H 

ft 

d 

•H 

CO 

0 

bD 

d 

cd 

ft 

o 

>> 

rO 

d 

0 

p 

o 

<u 

ft 

ft 

cd 

co 
P 
d 
0 
S 
CD 
i—I 
<D 

cd 

P 

cd 

P 

i 

i 

rA 

W 

0 


■3 

Eh 


00 

rA 

a 

Percent 

Number 


P 


d 


0 


o 


d 


O 

CO 

ft 



ON 


i—1 



d 


0 


ft 




P 


d 


0 


o 


d 


0 

CO 

ft 

LP\ 


on 


1—1 

d 


0 


rQ 




P 


d 


0 


o 


d 


0 

VO 

P 

vo 


ON 


rH 

d 


0 


,Q 




P 


d 


0 


o 


d 


0 

t- 

ft 

VO 


on 


rH 

d 


0 


rQ 




P 

d 

0 

S 

CD 
i—I 
CD 

cd 

P 

cd 

P 


O 

LT\ 

o- 

rH 

CO 

rA 

O 

OJ 

on 

la 

i—1 

rA 

VO 

• 

o 

o 

1—1 

tA 

OJ 

p 

OJ 

rH 

rH 

00 

lA 

LTV 

rH 

rA 

d 

i—l 

i—1 

OJ 


OJ 

co 

rA 

LT\ 

o 

1—1 

18 

co 

o- 

LTV 

LTV 

H 

CO 

LTV 

LT\ 

i—1 

OJ 

p- 

LT\ 

o 

rH 

O 

Lf\ 

rA 

co 

LT\ 


rH 

vo 

rA 

CO 

ON 

P 

i—1 

• 

o 

o 

1—1 

p- 

OJ 

i—l 

i—1 

tA 

i—1 

on 

VO 

OJ 

CO 

P 

o 

rH 

o 

rA 



fA 

G\ 

O 

p- 

LA 


OJ 

1—1 

OJ 

LT\ 

1—1 

CO 

Lf\ 

VO 

OJ 

OJ 


OJ 

VO 

CVJ 

1—1 





OJ 














o 

p 

o 

OJ 

LT\ 

OJ 

o 

OJ 

o\ 

ON 

ON 

on 

on 

o 

1—1 

OJ 

o 

OJ 

o 

on 

o 

d 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

OJ 

1—1 

1—1 


1—1 

OJ 

rH 






rH 














117 

LTV 

OJ 

H 

12 

rA 

OJ 

i—1 

P 

rA 

12 

i—1 

rH 

i—1 

1—1 

1—1 

o 

on 

LA 

on 

Lf\ 

CT\ 

t>- 

P 

00 


00 


vo 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

| 

• 

1 

• 

o 

o 

1—1 

rA 

i—1 

LT\ 

rA 

rH 

lA 

rA 

i—1 

H 

ON 

i—1 

OJ 


OJ 


LTN 







LTN 

VO 


rH 

1 

i—1 

1 

OJ 

vo 

LTN 

OJ 

LTN 

OJ 









rA 














O 

rA 

O 

rA 

rA 

CO 

O 

CO 


CO 



• 

o 

o 

rH 

• 

3 

3 

• 

P 

i—1 

• 

1 H 

• 

P 

ON 

rH 

• 

P 

1 

• 

P 

l 

• 

P 


21 

(A 

P 

rA 

1 

rA 

i—1 

P 

i—1 

1 

i —1 

1 

•H 


cd 


d 

o 

<D 

co 

O 

ft 

P 

d 

o 

ft 

p 

pH 

CD 

O 

X 

CD 

•s 

OJ 

w 

CD 
i —I 

P 

d 

•H 

d 

CD 

•H 


cd 

P 

d 

3 


d 

o 

•H 

P 


d 

<2 

d 


rH 

O 

d 

P 

d 

o 

o 

d 

d 

cd 


d 

2 

*\ 

d 

CD 

ft 


d 

CD 

bD 

d 

cd 

ft 

o 

ft 

o 

cd • 
CD d 


d 

o 

d 

CD 

•H 


CD 

ft 


d 

o 

o 

p 

cd 

P 

p 


CD 

•H 

ft 

•H 

P 

d 

CD 


d 

d 

cd 

o 


i? 

Pi 

cd 


ft d 
•H *H 
P 

d CD 
0 P 
d 

•H P 
O 
d 

d 
d H 


d 

o 

o 

P 

o 

•H 

■g 


t>> *H 

d H 
P P 
d -h 
0 p 

d rH 
•H cd 
cd d 
g O 
•H 
H P 
cd cd 
•h d 
o 

•H *n 
ft 0 
ft P 
O O 
d 
0 

p 0 

p a 


d 

o 

co 

P 

d 

0 

S 


i—l 
rH 


d 

0 

P 






p 




d 





i—1 

0 

O 

rH 

rH 




d 

0 


bD 

d 


d 





i—1 

cd 

O 


cd 


>> 


£ 


•H 


o 





co 

0 

CO 

P 

CO 

0 

'd 

P 

O 

EH 

>> 

d 

P 

d 


0 

p 

cd 


"d 

cd 

0 

>5 

d 

•H 

P 

cd 

d 

0 

p 


>> 


0 

p 

0 


d 

0 

d 

P 


rd 

P 

o 


Ph 

d 



d 

p 

d 


P 

ft 

o 

co 



d 

•H 

3 

O 

P 


rH 


•H 

rH 


d 

•H 



p 

0 

Ch 

d 

O 

d 


O 


a 

O 


0 

O 

p 

co 


o 


•H 



0 

d 

0 

•H 

d 




cd 

0 

CO 

0 


CO 


'd 

d 

H 

ft 

ft 

H 


d 


rH 

•H 

0 

•«”D 

0 

CO 

0 

0 

p 

0 






•rH 

d 

rH 

d 

P 

P 

tJ 

cd 

£ 


CO 

P 






cd 

o 

O 

0 

O 

d 


1—1 

0 


cd 

P 

• 


• 

• 



PQ 

o 

CO 


CO 

< 

o 

Pi 

< 

ft 

O 

rH 


OJ 

IA 


CO CO 
0 p 

bD d 
d *H 


cd 

P 


d 

P. 


O 0 


0 0 
P H 
cd P 
P -H 
co 4J> 

>5 bD 
Ph d 
O 




















recorded for each modification on a record. For example, when the closing 
of the record of a multivolume set involved changes in imprint date, colla¬ 
tion, and contents note, three changes were counted. 

Although all data elements on a record are susceptible to change, 
the analysis shows that some are more affected than others. Changes in 
subject headings rank at or near the top of the list in all but the latest 
sample. It will be recalled that this category of change does not result 
in a revised reprint although such changes are made if the record is 
reprinted for some other reason. This fact deserves considerable weight in 
evaluating the adequacy of various files for retrospective conversion. 

D. Implications 

The findings of this study provide convincing evidence that 
catalog records are not immutable and that change is a fact of life in a 
functioning catalog. The ability to accommodate this change is an essen¬ 
tial requirement of a viable system for storing these records in machine- 
readable form. Therefore, the inexorable character of change in catalog 
records must be taken into account in designing the organization of 
machine-readable data files and the means of accessing them. Only if this 
is done can additions, corrections, and deletions on records of any age be 
made quickly and efficiently. 

The study also establishes the fact that the Official Catalog 
differs materially from the Card Division record set in the accuracy and 
currency of its data. Therefore, even if projects involving the conversion 
of retrospective catalog records begin with the record set, changes in the 

151 


351-845 0 - 69—11 



Official Catalog cannot be ignored without risking a significant loss in 
the quality of the cataloging information, especially on older records. 


152 


Addendum 1 


SAMPLING METHODOLOGY 


A. Choice of Data Base 

In the last 70 years the Library has issued cards in 55 different 
series, representing many categorizations of its catalog records. Of these, 
19 were used in 1967 • The most active series in 1967 includes approxi¬ 
mately 115,000 entries; the least active, only 38 * To obtain a sample 
representing all card series would require meticulous stratification. To 
avoid this exercise, it was decided to limit the samples to cards in the 
regular (unlettered) series. This decision to simplify the drawing of the 
sample seemed justified on several other grounds: 

1. The regular series comprises the largest body of 
catalog cards (approximately 77 percent) of the 
total number printed since 1898. 

2. Many of the other current series (C, HE, J, K, 

NE, and SA) are used almost exclusively for 
records using nonroman alphabet languages that 
will not be put into machine-readable form in 
the immediate future. 

3. Still other series (e.g.. A) may be assumed to 
have characteristics similar to those of the 
regular series. 


155 



B. Sample Size, Confidence, and Precision 

The percentage of a total population that exhibits a specific 
characteristic can be estimated by analyzing a simple random sample. The 
size of the sample is determined by the size of the population, the antici¬ 
pated percentage that will have the characteristic, and the degree of 
confidence and precision desired. Table E.4 shows the data for the five 
samples used in this study. The confidence level for all samples is 90 
percent; that is, it is estimated that 90 out of 100 random samples of 
similar size would yield findings of the same degree of precision. 

Table E.4— Sampling table for estimating percentage of change in five , 
series of Library of Congress cards at a confidence level of 90 percent-V 



Number of 
cards.2/ 

Expected 
percent 
of change 

Precision 

Sample 

Year of series 

required 

size 

1938 

39,775 

40.0 

3-5 

523 

1948 

45,811 

30.0 

3-5 

459 

1958 

61,503 

20.0 

3-5 

351 

1966 

99,000 

7-0 

2.0 

443 

1967 

114,999 

6.0 

2.0 

381 


1 . Derived from Brown, R. Gene, and Lawrence L. Vance. Sampling 
tables for estimating error rates or other proportions. 

[Berkeley, Calif.] Institute of Business and Economic Research, 

University of California, Berkeley [cl96l]. 

2. Data from Card Division. 

The degree of precision is ± 2.0 percent in the 1966 and 19^7 
samples and ±3.5 percent in the 1938, 1948, and 1958 samples. This differ¬ 
ence had to be accepted to keep the sample sizes within bounds. The 
samples of the earlier card series would have to be three times larger to 
obtain a precision of + 2.0 percent. The degree of precision is absolute; 
that is, it is on the same scale as the estimated proportion of change. 


154 










Thus, a proportion of change expressed as 5.0 ± 2.0 percent represents a 
range from 3*0 to 7.0 percent. 

C. Selection of the Samples 

A table of random numbers-^ was used to generate the five 
samples for this study. By drawing each sample separately, it was possible 
to consider the five-digit numbers in the table as the second part of the 
LC card number for the series in question. A slight bias occurred in the 
sample for the 1967 series which includes approximately 15,000 cards with 
numbers larger than 99>999 (the largest number in the table). 


21 Rand Corporation. A million random digits with 100,000 normal 
deviates. Glencoe, Ill., Free Press, 1955- 


155 




Addendum 2 


LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
PROCESSING DEPARTMENT 
Department Memorandum No. 31 


March 29, 19^4 
Revised 

August 2 6 , 1963 
Revised 
March 9> 1964 


PROCEDURES FOR REPRINTING LC CARDS 

The following procedures for revising and reprinting catalog 
cards are effective immediately. Three categories of cards to he reprinted 
are established: offsets, resets, and revised reprints. 

Revised reprints will be prepared to replace cards already in the 
Library of Congress catalogs, and will also be distributed to depository 
libraries, the Union Catalog Division, and the Cumulative Catalog Section 
of the Catalog Maintenance Division for the book catalogs. Whenever any 
correction is made that justifies this replacement (see C2 below) the 
correction will result in a revised reprint even though the whole catalog 
entry will not normally be reviewed in depth to see whether other correc¬ 
tions might also be in order. 

A. OFFSETS 

1. Origin 

Originate in the Card Division 

2. Types included 


Cards to be reproduced photographically without 
change to replenish stock. These will include 
cards with typographic or other errors not 
affecting the filing of the main or secondary 
entry and otherwise so minor that they can be 
ignored; cards required by the Subject Cataloging 
Division to prepare changed or corrected subject 
entries; and cards required by the Catalog Main¬ 
tenance Division to prepare adapted sets and 
corrected replacements involving change of call 
number or other changes not calling for resetting 
or revised reprinting. 


156 




B. RESETS 


1. Origin 


a. Originate in the Card Division to replenish 
stock when record card is too poor to photo¬ 
graph. 

b. Originate elsewhere when corrections too 
minor to cause the card to be treated as 
a revised reprint are to be made. 

2. Types included 


a. Cards to be reset without change to replenish 
stock when there is no satisfactory card to 
photograph. 

b. Cards to be reset with minor changes when 
needed to replenish stock* and the Reprint 
Unit of the Card Division has been notified 
that corrections of the following kinds are 
in order: 

1. Changes in the heading that do not affect 
the filing, such as addition of date of 
death, deletion of such designations as 
Mrs., Sir, etc., addition or deletion of 
inc., etc., 

2. change in title not affecting filing, 

3. minor change in accents, punctuation, or 
capitalization, 

4. change in imprint in form but not in fact, 

5. change in illustration statement in collation, 

6. change in size, 

7. minor change in running time for films or 
number of frames for filmstrips, 

* Corrections of the kind described here are made on the appropriate cards 
in the Library of Congress catalogs by the catalogers or, at their direc¬ 
tion, by the Catalog Maintenance Division. 


157 






8. change in series note in form but not in fact, 

9. minor additions or changes in notes, including 
addition of title transliterated note, 

10. addition of contents note, 

11. addition of another issue, copy, or microfilm 
copy, 

12. subject added or changed, 

13 . added entry (including series) added, 
changed, or deleted, 

14. addition or change of LC classification number, 

15. addition or change of Dewey classification 
number, 

16. addition of dagger when a card printed from 
cooperative copy is adapted for LC. 

3. Procedure 


a. The Reprint Unit searches the Official Catalog 
before resetting a card if there is reason to 
think a change has been made. 

b. The descriptive cataloger or member of the Decimal 
Classification Office, or Editorial Section of the 
Subject Cataloging Division notifies the Reprint 
Unit of any changes made after the date of this 
memorandum on any card printed in the two current 
series. 

c. If the change is to be made in all catalogs, the 
descriptive or subject cataloger asks the Card 
Preparation Section of the Catalog Maintenance 
Division to correct the cards in all catalogs. 

d. The Reprint Unit determines whether the correc¬ 
tion shall be ignored until card stock is exhausted 
or whether stock shall be killed immediately, but 
will kill stock for cases 12 and 14 above when 
requested by the Subject Cataloging Division and 

15 when requested by the Decimal Classification 


158 



Office. If resetting is delayed, the record 
card is stamped either "See Official Catalog 
before resetting," or "See attached card for 
corrections." 

e. The Inventory Section of the Card Division 

prepares the card for the printer, estimating, 
adding symbols, etc. The symbol added to cards 
reset without change, e.g. [44d2] indicates the 
year of reprint, number of hundreds printed 
previously and number of hundreds printed at 
this printing. If any change has been made, 

"a" (i.e., addition) is prefixed to the symbol, 
e.g., [a44d2] and cards are replaced in Card 
Division catalogs only. A long dash in the 
card number is used on all resets. 

C. REVISED REPRINTS 


1. Origin 

a. Originate in the Descriptive Cataloging Division 
when revisions are made. 

EXCEPTION: The symbol "rev" is added to the card 
number when cards are reprinted for corrections 
before distribution to the Library's catalogs or 
when cards are reprinted to’eliminate duplication 
of card numbers. 

2. Types of corrections 


a. Main entry changed (e.g., from corporate to personal 
author; author and title to title entry; or vice 
versa), 

b. heading changed in any significant way, by correc¬ 
tion of error in spelling or date, addition or 
deletion of birth date or distinguishing phrase, 

c. change in title or title transliterated note if it 
affects filing, 

d. addition or deletion of subtitle, 

e. addition of author statement, editor statement, or 
statement of illustrations. 


159 






f. change in paging, 

g. important additions or changes in notes, 

h. addition of indexes and supplements, 

i. entries opened or closed, 

j. errors in card numbers corrected, 

k. card "Printed for Card Division" adapted, 

l. changes such as those listed under B2b when the 
corrections are important enough or numerous 
enough to warrant replacing all copies of the 
cards in the LC catalogs and including a revised 
entry in the book catalogs, 

m. changes such as those listed under B2b when 
cooperatively printed cards are being adapted and 
the changes are numerous or difficult to incorporate. 

3. Procedure 


a. The descriptive cataloger notifies Reprint Unit 
to kill stock immediately. 

b. Following descriptive revision, the card (and book, 
if needed by the descriptive cataloger) is forwarded 
to the Subject Cataloging Division, and from there 
the card is sent to the Reprint Unit or to the 
Coordinator of Cooperative Cataloging. 

c. For revised reprints, "rev" is printed at the end 
of the card number. When cards in the Ca unrev'd 
series are revised they are reprinted with current 
card numbers, and do not indicate a previous printing. 

d. Revised reprints are distributed (to Catalog Main¬ 
tenance Division, Union Catalog Division, and 
depository catalogs) according to the distribution 
of new cards. 

When the Card Division cannot locate the Official main card, or 
when it is not suitable copy for the printer, the Descriptive Cataloging 
Division provides a replacement, which may be reset or reprinted revised. 


160 



Cards printed in Far Eastern and Indie languages that are neces¬ 
sarily produced photomechanically are reset or revised in accordance with 
the above criteria but with special procedures involving respectively, 
the Far Eastern Languages Section and the South Asian Languages Section 
of the Descriptive Cataloging Division. 








Addendum 3 


COPY INFORMATION 

Notations about the number and location of copies of cataloged 
items are largely confined to the shelflist. Copy information appears in 
the Official Catalog only when more than one call number or special loca¬ 
tion is involved. Although shelflist notations about copies may be made 
when the original record is being prepared, they are often added later and 
thus effect a change in the record. Since a full-scale bibliographical 
store for the Library should include this kind of information, it was 
decided to check three of the samples in the shelflist to determine how 
often copy information had been added after completion of the original 
catalog record. 

In the 1966 and 1967 samples, 11.5 percent of the records (51 of 
443 and 44 of 381 respectively) had been changed at least once to add copy 
information in the shelflist. In the 1948 sample, 15*7 percent of the 
records (72 of 459) had been changed in this way. These figures show only 
the number of records affected but the actual workload was heavier because, 
in a sizable number of cases, copy information had been added to the same 
record on more than one occasion. 

The findings of this partial analysis help to quantify the 
additional burden of updating that will have to be assumed if the file of 
machine-readable records is to perform the functions of the shelflist. 


162 


Appendix F 


COMPLETENESS OF MACHINE-READABLE CATALOG RECORDS 

In developing plans for conversion of retrospective records, the 
possibility exists that not all data for bibliographic items may be 
recorded in machine-readable form with the degree of completeness speci¬ 
fied by the MARC II format. Records might be created with a lesser degree 
of differentiation of the data (that is, simplification of the tags, 
indicators, and subfield codes) and/or with some limitation on the biblio¬ 
graphic data as might occur when a brief shelflist record is made. 

Lack of bibliographic data may deprive a record of the richness 
of detail that would enhance its usefulness but it would not cause the 
same kinds of problems that would arise from variations in machine format. 
For example, if some records have tags that are less precise than those in 
other records, all records must be processed at the lowest common denomi¬ 
nator. On the other hand, lack of a data element that may actually apply 
to an item (such as an index note that could only be made by going back to 
the book) does not preclude the processing of those records that do have a 
fixed field containing this information. 

For discussion purposes, the working task force felt the need to 
define levels of encoding detail in relation to the conditions under which 


conversion might occur. Consideration was also given to an attempt to 
describe a minimal standard for conversion in local institutions. 

Three levels of standards were tentatively defined as follows: 

Level 1 involves the encoding of bibliographic items according to 
the practices followed at the Library of Congress for currently cataloged 
items, i.e., the MARC II format. A distinguishing feature of level 1 is 
the inclusion of certain content designators and data elements which, in 
some instances, can be specified only with the physical item in hand. 

Level 2 supplies the same degree of detail as in level 1 insofar 
as it can be ascertained through an already supplied bibliographic record. 
This means that in some cases the following content designators and data 
elements specified in MARC II cannot be supplied from existing catalog 
records to be converted: (l) language, (2) index, (3) subject as main 
entry, (4) fiction, (5) form of reproduction (e.g., large print), and 
(6) form of content. 

Essentially, however, the remaining tags, delimiters, indicators, 
subfield codes and data elements could be assigned to retrospective records 
with no reference to the physical item. 

Level 3 would be distinguished by the fact that only part of the 
bibliographic data in the original catalog record would be transcribed. In 
addition, content designators might be restricted to those tags necessary 
to identify the data elements in the following list: 


164 





Main entry 
Short title 

Edition (transcribed to the word "edition" or 
its equivalent) 

LC card number, if it is available 
Imprint: place, publisher, date 
Pagination (main body of pagination only) 

Series 

Subject headings 
Added entries 
Local call number 

Language (as a fixed field, according to the 
MARC II specifications for tag 04l) 

The level 3 record would be further simplified by omitting all 
indicators, delimiters, and subfield codes. 

This type of record might be useful to libraries that plan to 
convert their own holdings. The advantage of establishing a minimum 
standard is that it might promote compatibility among libraries that desire 
to exchange limited bibliographic records on the same terms. 

No matter what level of bibliographic records is produced for the 
primary conversion operation, truncated records (level 3) might also be 
available for distribution as an option for potential subscribers. The 
feasibility of providing this service would depend on the future capabili¬ 
ties of a centralized operation. 


165 







In attempting to arrive at any of the three levels described 
above, it is pertinent to explore the possible effects of a promising 
technical approach for conversion, which involves no manual pre-editing or 
only partial editing (cues to the machine) with processing in either case 
by an automatic format recognition program to assign content designators.i 

At present, it is not possible to say how successfully this pro¬ 
gram will perform. Records produced by this method might conceivably be 
equivalent to level 2 if the full character string were input. On the 
other hand, the most efficient combination of man and machine effort may 
not permit assignment of all of the indicators and subfield codes in 
level 2. 

Format recognition is now being studied by the Library of 
Congress in connection with the MARC Distribution Service for current 
cataloging data. The effort is being concentrated on use of the machine 
to assist in the editing process, i.e., partial editing with format recog¬ 
nition to arrive at a level 1 record. 

An analysis of the functions of content designators specified in 
the MARC II format has been made by the Library of Congress in relation to 
the following functions: 

1. Organization of data either for machine segmentation 
of like categories of information (by date, country, 
language, etc.) or for human-readable display. 

2. Alphabetical filing for the printing of book-form catalogs. 

1. Cf. chapter 5> section A4, and appendix G. 


166 



3- Searching for an individual item. 

4. Retrieval of items by specified arguments. 

5. Statistics for management control. 

6. Maintenance (updating and control) of data 
elements in a system. 

7* Output of a variety of products (i.e., catalog 
cards, special listing, machine-readable data, 
etc.). 

The effects of any loss of precision resulting from use of a 
format recognition program will have to be evaluated in the light of the 
functions listed above. For example, many indicators and subfield codes 
are used principally to facilitate programming to produce sophisticated 
filing arrangements. They add significantly to the complexity of manual 
editing of MARC II records and may present unsolvable problems for a 
format recognition program. Whether the benefits of the filing arrange¬ 
ments are worth the cost of achieving them is a legitimate question. For 
this reason, the Library of Congress and other libraries are re-examining 
the basic requirements for file arrangement. 

If a centralized conversion project does come into being, the 
cost of conversion to a MARC II record might influence the decision in 
favor of a record with simpler content designators. The consequences of 
reducing costs by this means must be weighed against possible disadvantages 
of a mixed data base at a central source. The supposed savings may be 


167 


351-845 0 - 69—12 








largely offset if future library operations necessitate wholesale revision 
to achieve a uniform level of machine coding in the entire data base. 

During the course of this study, it became more and more evident 
that a mixed data base (i.e., conversion at different levels) at a 
central source would be a serious mistake. To avoid this difficulty, it 
seems desirable to strive for an optimum format for both current and 
retrospective records by a judicious balance between human and machine 
assignment of content designators. 


168 


Appendix G 


FORMAT RECOGNITION 

A. Editing as a Factor in Format Recognition 

In the context of this study the purpose of a format recognition 
program is to accept magnetic tape records that have been converted into 
machine-readable form by some input device and automatically to reconstruct 
and tag the records according to the specifications of a MARC II record 
(see appendix F). The working task force considered both alternatives for 
input devices and alternatives in the amount of human editing (tagging, 
delimiting, etc.) that would be performed upon the record prior to input. 
These latter alternatives were defined as (l) full editing: editor assigns 
all tags, delimiters, etc., prior to conversion to machine-readable form, 
(2) partial editing: editor assigns a subset of tags, delimiters, etc., 
prior to conversion, and (3) no editing by a human prior to conversion. 

Full editing does not require any format recognition program 
since the function has been performed completely prior to conversion. 
Partial editing and no editing both require format recognition of varying 
! degrees of complexity assuming the final product in both instances is a 
I MARC II record. Before an accurate measure of the ideal balance between 
1 man and machine can be known, it will be necessary to make a statistical 


169 







analysis of the characteristics of cataloging records in a variety of 
languages and an evaluation of the logic of the software that is not only 
required but possible. 

An unedited magnetic tape record can be the result of direct-read 
OCR or keying by an input device. In the case of the use of a keying 
device, function codes will be input by the typist to simulate type faces 
and indentions in the original data and provide the same level of cues as 
would result from reading the LC printed card by the direct-read OCR. It 
is obvious that if a keying device were used, some simplified editing could 
be accomplished at transcription time. For discussion purposes, however, 
this fine distinction leads to too many variables. Therefore, the format 
recognition problem for both types of devices is assumed to be the same. 

The discussion that describes the conversion of the LC record set 
by use of direct-read OCR and followed by format recognition is confined 
to the LC card printed since 1949. Before 1949, the card had three dif¬ 
ferent printing formats. Although the three earlier formats were not sub¬ 
stantially different from the cards printed since 1949> the format recog¬ 
nition program would require modification of this interpretation. 

Partially edited magnetic tape records would result from some 
level of editing by a human being followed by transcription by a keying 
device. Partial editing should result in a more accurate performance by 
the format recognition program. Given some cues, the machine would make 
fewer mistakes than if the program were assigned the entire responsibility 
for the editing function. If a large number of records have to be recycled 


170 


through the machine because of format recognition errors, processing 
without pre-editing is highly questionable. It is expensive not only in 
terms of machine time but, even more important, in terms of the manpower 
required to proof, correct, and re-key. 

If a data element were not identified in a partially edited 
record, the format recognition logic will be confronted with the same 
situation as in an unedited record. Since partial editing cannot be 
defined at this time, it is difficult to make a clear distinction between 
the two categories when giving examples. 

B. Format Recognition Logic 

This section gives a brief and over-simplified description of 
format recognition logic and the problems inherent in this attempt to 
minimize the human editorial function. The discussion is based on work 
performed by the Library of Congress with contractual support. Although 
much thought has been given to format recognition, the work to date is 
not at a point where it is safe to derive absolute conclusions about its 
efficiency. 

Program algorithms for both partially edited and unedited records 
would depend on patterns of punctuation, spacing, capitalization, position 
(right margin, left margin), and type face. In other words, the physical 
attributes of the printing yield cues to many of the content designators: 
for example, on LC cards bold type usually signifies the main entry, 
indention marks the beginning of the fields such as the title, and the LC 
card number is in the lower right-hand corner of the card. 


171 



There are, of course, significant limitations to the capabilities 
of this technique. First, it is virtually impossible to identify a data 
element whose sole cue lies in the meaning of the character string itself. 
For example, it would be difficult to identify the type of subject, i.e., 
geographic, topical, or political jurisdiction. Given the term Andes, 
there is no way for the machine to determine the type of subject heading. 

It would not be feasible to have a lookup table the length of the Columbia 
Lippincott Gazetteer to identify geographic names. A similar problem 
exists in distinguishing general subject subdivisions from geographic 
subdivisions. 

Second, the visually discernible printing cues are not always 
present even for those content designators that can be related to the 
cues and sometimes, even when present, they are ambiguous. For example, 
the edition statement is not always separated from the imprint statement 
by the use of a period; in some cases, a closed bracket is substituted 
for the period. 

1. Main Entry 

A name used as a main entry might be identified by format recog¬ 
nition logic without cues by using the following algorithm. 

The first recognition problem in analyzing the name main entry 
would be in determining if, in fact, there was a name entry or if the 
work was entered under title. This might be determined by the design of 
an algorithm depending on spacing. (Direct-read OCR under program control 
can record the spacing on a printed card as characters coded as blanks or 

172 




spaces,) When a main entry is a name, it begins at the far left margin, 
about 3/^ inches from the edge of the card. If the name runs over one 
line, the next line would be printed 15/16 inches from the edge. The 
title begins a new line indented approximately 1-1/6 inches from the edge. 
The rest of the body of the entry is printed 15/16 inches from the edge. 
When a record is entered under title, the card is usually printed in the 
hanging indention format. The title begins at the far left margin, about 
3/4 inches from the edge and each line in the body of the entry following 
would be printed 15/l6 inches from the edge. Under ALA. rules, a record 
entered under title was sometimes printed in paragraph format. In this 
case, the title main entry could be recognized from the fact that the 
first line begins l-l/l6 inches from the edge. 

Therefore, if the recognition program were dependent on position 
(spacing) it would be necessary for the computer to "look ahead" at the 
rest of the title paragraph to distinguish between a name main entry and 
a title entry. 

It might be possible also to distinguish elements in the main 
entry by type face. The following patterns of 10-point bold, italic, and 
roman type are used on LC cards. 

Title main entry 

Elements Type 

Title with an initial article Roman/bold/roman 

Bold/roman 


Title without an initial article 


173 





Name main entry 


Elements 

Personal name, title, date, relator 

Personal name, title, date 

Personal name, title or relator; 
Corporate name, qualifiers or sub¬ 
divisions 

Personal name, date, relator 
Personal name, date 
Personal or corporate name 


Type 

Bold/italic/roman/italic 

Bold/italic/roman 

Bold/italic 

Bold/roman/italic 

Bold/roman 

Bold 


An algorithm could be formulated to scan the characters in the 
record (equivalent to the first line on the printed card) searching for 
roman type. If the characters in the roman string were numeric, an assump¬ 
tion could be made that the numerics equaled the date of a name main entry. 
If the roman type encountered in the first line were alphabetic, a title 
entry could be assumed. 

If the entry were a name entry, the format recognition logic 
would have to categorize the name into one of many types such as personal 
name, single surname; personal name, forename; corporate name entered under 
place, etc. 

The program logic for this analysis would be complex. For illus¬ 
trative purposes, a possible subroutine for the recognition and delimiting 
of a single personal surname is described below: 

a. If the first word is followed by a comma, the name is assumed 
to be a personal name, single surname. (The possible error 


174 





in this logic is that the entry might be a place name fol¬ 
lowed by a comma, e.g., Washington, D. C.) 

b. The character string is then searched for a second comma and 
the data after the second comma is divided into subfields 
using the following algorithms. 

(1) If the data is numeric, the subfield is assumed to be 
date, and field is delimited with the date subfield 
code. 

(2) If the data is alphabetic, the characters are compared 
against a lookup table of the most common terms used 

as relators, e.g., ed., comp., illus., etc. If a match 
occurs, the subfield is delimited with the relator sub¬ 
field code. 

(3) If no match occurs in point b above, the subfield is 
considered to be a title subfield and so delimited. 

c. The process continues searching for a third comma and a 
fourth comma if present, recycling through the same sub¬ 
routine described in b (l)-(3) above. For names not analyzed 
as personal names beginning with a single surname, other 
algorithms would be designed to match against keywords or 
symbols. For example, the words "conference," "symposium," 
"congress," etc., would usually indicate that the name was 
that of a meeting. If a period was found following the first 
word, the name would probably be a corporate name entered 


175 


under place. A hyphen embedded in the first word usually 
indicates a personal name beginning with a multiple surname. 

It should be noted that it is highly improbable that all types 
of entry could be recognized by format logic. Those that could not be 
identified could be tagged as unknown or perhaps erroneously tagged and 
would have to be corrected in the proofing process. 

If some degree of "partial editing" were assumed,, the format 
recognition would be simpler to construct and more accurate in performance. 
For example, if each major field were to be identified, the logic could 
concern itself with the indicators and the subfield codes required for 
the field. In the main entry field, it would be fairly simple to have an 
editor distinguish between name and title main entries. In addition, the 
name main entries might be distinguished as personal name, corporate name, 
meeting, and uniform title. This determination is for the most part 
simple but occasionally can be troublesome, as in the case of foreign 
geographic names and corporate bodies. 

If the type of main entry is known, the analysis now breaks down 
into a determination of the kind of name (such as personal name single 
surname) and, within the name, the pertinent subfields. For personal name 
single surname, it would be possible to use the logic that depends on the 
location of the comma after the first word. Since the determination would 
already have been made that the field contained a personal name, the prob¬ 
lem of differentiating between personal name forenames and corporate names 
would be eliminated. Also eliminated would be the confusion between 


176 


personal name single surnames and corporate names entered under place when 
the place was followed by the state or country. 

2. Call Number Field 

The call number field lends itself readily to automatic format 
recognition without prior editing. The field could be identified by its 
position in the lower left-hand corner of the card. (This equates to some 
position based on spacing in the record.) The presence or absence of 
square brackets surrounding the call number would determine if the book 
were in the LC collection. The separation of the call number into class 
number and book number would be somewhat more difficult, but (based on a 
sample of 531 call numbers) the following algorithms could insert the 
delimiter correctly about 9b percent of the time. The delimiter would be 
placed before the last uppercase alphabetic character unless the last 
uppercase alphabetic character was preceded by a period. Then the delimiter 
would be inserted before the period. (Examples: HE355.A3JA5155 and 
QC4 331f- L65). 

3. Title Field 

The title field would be very difficult to divide into its 
component parts by machine without human assistance. Simple identifica¬ 
tion of the end of the field would be difficult since the title transcrip¬ 
tion is frequently made up of several segments separated by periods. With¬ 
out some partial editing, it would be difficult to separate the end of the 
title statement from the edition statement. Within the title statement, 


177 



the problem exists of separating the data into short title, remainder of 
title, and remainder of title page transcription subfields. 

In a small sample of 258 titles, trial algorithms were used 
with the following results. When a delimiter was inserted after the first 
mark of punctuation, the short title was distinguished correctly only 77 
percent of the time. Attempts to distinguish the remainder of the title 
page transcription were based on location of the cue word "by." The 
characters immediately preceding "by" were searched for a comma, a closed 
bracket, and one of the following words: edited, compiled, translated, 
preface, introduction, illustrated, prepared, selected, or foreword, and 
a delimiter was inserted before the word. This algorithm was correct only 
76 percent of the time. This rough sample indicates that for maximum 
efficiency it might be necessary to pre-edit the title field. 

4. Author/Title Fields 

Another field that would be difficult to analyze by machine is 
the author/title entry used as a subject entry or as a general added entry. 
An algorithm that would effectively separate the subordinate units of a 
corporate name from a following title would probably be impossible to con¬ 
struct and some kind of partial editing would be mandatory. 

C. Conclusion 

It is not within the scope of this appendix to give a field-by- 
field analysis of the LC catalog record from the standpoint of format 
recognition. The studies currently in progress at the Library of Congress 


178 



indicate that partial editing combined with format recognition processing 
is a promising alternative to full editing. Figure G.l is an unedited 
record on a MARC worksheet. Figure G.2 illustrates the same record par¬ 
tially edited along the lines of the ongoing investigations. Figure G-3 
shows this record after full editing. These figures serve to illustrate 
the degree of human involvement in full editing as opposed to partial 
editing. 




179 







-p 

<v 

<D 

& 

W 

o 

£ 



<1> 

-P 

•H 


a> 

B 



O 



•H 

P*H 



<D 

O 

Eh 


•H 

W 

CO 

Cm 

W 

CO 

Cm 

w 

w 

O 

CO 

ps 



0 

W 

« 

s 

a 

0 

0 

<D 


0 

-P 



CQ 

Eh 

P*H 

>> D 

O 

CO 



C 

s 

M 

K 

O 


< 

•H 

M 

W 

-P 

hH 

CQ 

aJ 


M 

5 

O 

hQ 

U 

pr: 


O 

Cm 

£ 

M 

1 



11-19 (rev 9/68) 





















-p 



a) 



<D 



r*S 



W 









o 



£ 


03 

O 

CO 

a Fh 
•H W 
<m w 

§ 

CO 

<m PS 


w 


PS 

° s 

0 ) 

o 

W CC 

-p 

s 

E o 

•H 

o 

<D ^ 


o 

-P 

< 1 ) 

pH 

cq Eh 
>> :=> 

>? 

o 

CO Ph 

i— 1 


s 

i— 1 

>H 

CJ M 

cd 

PS 

o 

•H 

< 

•H M 

-P 

PS 

-P M 


CQ 

cd 

cd 

M 

£ o 

fL 

P) 

L< PS 

i 


o < 

i 


Cm S 

CVJ 


g 

• 


M 

o 



a> 



•H 



Fp 





CO 

t- 

Ci 

O 

CM 


t- 


d 

<M 

O 


o 


m 


11 ^ 4 - 


CO 

CO 

N 



m 

I 

& 

c 

o 


O 


«w 


O 

>» 


t- 


CC 

*-. 


P 


© 




\o cl rL 
<L. CL o 0 
Ui Mi \li 


>> 

r& 

"d 

0 ) 

-P (D 
•H -P 
Tj Cd 
W Q 






$ 


c 

















o 


O 

















p 


P 










'd 





bO 


c 

P 


P 

O 

P 

• 

rH 

w 

s 




P 

3 

© 


V) 


P 

o 

o 





C 

P 


w 


CL 

p 

(0 




<P 


O 

CL 


03 

© 

T3 

03 





P 

a) 

0) 

>< 


ir 

a> 

rH 


p 

p 




O 

>» 

Ul 

w 

p 






ac 




P 


o 


P 


P 

C 


P 





\ 


K 


c 


<13 




P 


03 


<P 





<p 


<D 




*P 


<13 


C 


P 


P 





c 


TJ 


> 

• 

P 

• 

P 

• 

d 

• 

c 

• 

T5 

• 




o 

• 

C 

• 


o 

3 

k\ 

03 

P 

o 

K> 

o 

VO 

O 

CO 




o 

CM 

M 


*-* 

p 

CO 

p 

Q 

CM 

o 

CM 

o 

CM 

s 

CM 








w 



















s 















p 


















vh 

£ 


P 

<p 


w 

p 




>5 

0) 

w 









</3 


P 


rl 


p 


>> 






p 


p 



03 nn 

$?□ 

> 


p 


<D 


X 


03 




o 


03 



Ul 

o 

• 

r 

• 

p 


CL 


P 




CL 


> 



C3 

P 

o 

K> 

cn 


03 


03 


CM 




03 






w 


p 


P 


Q 




O 


© 



taO < 




p 


p 


bO 




<13 


P 





C PI 


P 


w 


P 


O 

• 

P 

• 

P 

• 

CL 

• 

P 

• 


o3 


E 


<1) 


2 

t 

P 

CM 

2 

O 

03 

CM 

03 

IT 

P 

C" 


Pi 


cl 


CL 


CL 

VO 

© 

P 

© 

CM 

Q 

CM 

© 

CM 

© 

CM 



( 89/6 Aaa) 6 T-TT 





















-p 

<D 

<V 

rC 

CO 

44 

P 

O 

£ 



& 

<D 

-P 

•H 

•d 

0 ) 


s 

I—I 
£ 


I 

I 




•H 


CO 

CO 

w 

Oh 

o 

a 

O 

O 

t-. 

o 

>H 

05 

< 

05 

CQ 

M 

P 



11-19 (rev 9/68) 























Appendix H 


COMPUTER REQUIREMENTS FOR A NATIONAL 
BIBLIOGRAPHIC SERVICE 


A. Introduction 

This appendix presents an analysis of the hardware and software 
requirements to provide machine-readable bibliographic information to the 
library community from a central source. The service would be designed 
to provide magnetic tapes containing blocks of records in selected cate¬ 
gories on a subscription basis and to satisfy on-demand requests for 
specific records. 

The postulated time frame for this effort is as follows: design 
of the system by 1970; site preparation and implementation of system by 
1972; and conversion of records and initiation of the distribution service 
in the period 1972-1976. Thereafter, conversion of current cataloging 
and any other retrospective records that might be appropriate would supply 
material for a continuing service. Additional hardware would be required 
if and when the data base exceeded the size allowed by the capacities of 
the present design. 

Volumes, production rates, and cost figures have been obtained 
by extrapolation from current data. Much of this information stems from 

I83 


351-845 0 - 69—13 



the MARC Distribution Service which has many similarities to the projected 
service. Assumptions and estimates have been kept as realistic as possi¬ 
ble; if anything, they are pessimistic. This preliminary system design 
was constructed for the present report as a model for estimating cost, 
time, and performance. A definitive design would require one or two man- 
years of detailed analysis. 

B. Distribution Services 

1. General 

The function of the central installation would be to convert 
bibliographic records to machine-readable form, to maintain them in a 
central store, and to make them available to the library community. Design¬ 
ing a centralized system for distributing machine-readable records for 
retrospective material poses many problems. The regular production of 
records over a period of years would make a subscription service possible. 
At a regular interval (perhaps weekly) a magnetic tape containing newly 
converted records could be distributed to subscribers. Since few potential 
users will require all of the records if they cover a wide range of lan¬ 
guages and dates, some means should be found to satisfy their varying needs. 
The following patterns of service might be considered: 

a. Complete sets of tapes to libraries, regional processing 
centers, and commercial services that desire to search 
against a complete file. 

b. Subsets of the total file by major language category (e.g., 



English; other roman alphabet languages) and/or date (pos¬ 
sibly limited to 10-year periods). 

c. On-demand service by Library of Congress card number or 
author/title. 

2. On-Demand Service 

The on-demand capability would allow customers to order specific 
records already in machine-readable form either by LC card number or by 
author and title. On-demand requests would result in the accumulation of 
records extracted for a customer from the total data base using either or 
both accesses. The records selected for a customer would be distributed 
on magnetic tape. 

The on-demand capability is conceptually feasible but its achieve¬ 
ment requires a great deal of planning and design. A small number of on- 
demand requests (2,000 per day) has been used in this report to provide 
the basis for estimates for this type of service. Note that the term on- 
demand request is not envisaged to mean on-line requests for the time 
period 1972-1976. 

C. Hardware Requirements 

1. Computer Configuration 

The central installation should include a medium-scale, third- 
generation computer with 8-bit byte handling capabilities. It would prob¬ 
ably not be critical to have on-line capabilities because the installation 
would operate in a batch-processing mode. Since many of the processes are 

185 




input/output bound, however, the operating system should have multiprogram¬ 
ming capabilities for efficient use of the main frame. 

The computer should include the standard peripheral devices: 
card reader, card punch, and line printer. The printer should have at 
least a 600-line-per-minute rate and be able to print 132 print positions 
per line. 

There should be at least six magnetic tape drives which permit 
sorting with a two-way merge. The drives should be 60 KC drives (800 bits 
per inch, 75 inches per second). Additional tape drives would be useful 
not only to sort more efficiently but also to duplicate tapes for the dis¬ 
tribution services. It would be highly desirable to be able to read tapes 
forward and backward. 

Two classes of mass storage would be required. A relatively 
fast access disk pack device (50-100ms average access time) would be 
required for a directory to the data base (author/title index). The IBM 
2314 disk or its equivalent (roughly 200-million bytes of storage) would 
be suitable. A large-scale, less rapid access device (l00-20Qms average 
access time) would be needed for storage of the records themselves. An 
example of this kind of device is the Bryant 4000-series disk with 400- 
million bytes capacity. Total storage capacity can be expanded by addi¬ 
tional units. 

The rental for a computer with the above characteristics, exclu¬ 
sive of the disk devices, is in the range of $25,000-$35^000 per month. 
Examples of such computers are the SDS Sigma 7, RCA Spectra 70/45, and the 


186 


IBM 360/50* The cost of the disks varies with the number of records to 
be maintained in the data base. The disk costs were based on the follow¬ 
ing assumptions: 

a. The average length of a record is 500 bytes including over¬ 
head characters for machine manipulation..^/ Each large- 
scale 400-million-byte disk would hold approximately 750,000 
records, allowing for some nonusable space (see figure H.l). 

b. The faster disk packs would be used for the author/title 
index and for the entry to the threaded list structure. In 
the worst case, this would require 13-million bytes of fixed 
overhead for the index plus 40 bytes per record. Therefore, 
each disk pack of 29-million bytes would accommodate 40- 
byte overhead fields for 700,000 records. The exception 
would be the first pack which could accommodate only 40- 
byte overhead fields for 400,000 records because 13-million 
bytes on this disk would have to be used for fixed overhead 
area for the author/title index. Allowance was made for 
nonusable space. (See section D4 for details of the access 
method.) 

c. The rental for the IBM 2314 disk is $5A 10 P er month, not 
including an additional $20 per disk pack per month, and the 
rental for the Bryant 400-million-byte disk is $8,350 per 

T. Based on analysis of 391 records on the MARC II test tape. The short¬ 
est record had 28l characters, the longest 1,074. 

187 





month. The later figure includes an estimate of maintenance 
cost, whereas maintenance on the IBM disk was not included 
as it is handled separately on a time-and-materials basis. 

Figure H.2 illustrates the combined costs of the series of two 
different disk devices needed to maintain the data base and the author/ 
title index. Figure H.3 illustrates how the cost per 1,000 records would 
vary with the total number of records. The saw-tooth curve represents the 
sum of the monthly rentals of the Bryant disk and the IBM 2314; the addi¬ 
tion of each Bryant disk represents a large step function, while an addi¬ 
tional 2314 adds a small step function. Neither figure H.2 nor figure H .3 
allow for the temporary utilization of surplus space on the 2314 for data 
base records until another Bryant disk is required. 

D. Software Requirements 

1. General 

The general software requirements of the system would be those 
of any data processing computer installation: operating system, assembler, 
compilers, dumps, utilities, sort/merge, etc. Most of this software should 
be supplied by the vendor. In addition, special service programs would be 
needed for customer accounting, subscription list maintenance, mailing list 
generation, etc. 

The programs designed especially for the creation, maintenance, 
and retrieval aspects of the system would all be of considerable complex¬ 
ity. They fall into three general processing subsystems: 


188 




Figure H.l—Storage capacity of large-scale 
disks, in terms of number of records stored 


Storage Capacity 
(Characters) x 10 9 



189 












Figure H.2—Monthly cost of devices to store data 
base and index in terms of number of records stored 


Cost Per Month 
(Dollars) x 10 3 

100 


90 


80 


70 


60 


50 


40 


30 


20 


10 


$94.6 


Cost totals - large mass storage 

plus disk pack storage 

Cost - large Bryant disk-type 
mass storage device(s) 


$77.9 


$72.4 


$64.0 


fr 


$55.7 


$47.3 


$39.0 


$30.6 


$22.3 


$13.9 



BRYANT DISK 


8th , 

BRYANT DISK 1 


7th | 

BRYANT DISK 


6th | 

BRYANT DISK 


5th i 

BRYANT DISK 


4th | 

BRYANT DISK 


3d , 

BRYANT DISK 


2d 

BRYANT DISK 


1st | 

I—BRYANT DISK 


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Number of Variable-Length Records x 10 6 

THE COST OF THE FIRST 2314-TYPE DISK IS INCLUDED IN THE COST OF FIRST SEVEN BRYANT 
DISKS. WHEN MORE THAN SEVEN BRYANT DISKS ARE USED, A SECOND 2314 WILL BE REQUIR¬ 
ED; HENCE THE SHARP INCREASE IN COST. 


190 







































35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 


;ure H.3—Cost of storage per 1,000 records, by number of records stored 

t of Both Disk Devices 
1000 Records Per Month 
liars) 



DISK DISK DISK DISK DISK DISK 


1 


1st 2314-TYPE 
DISK 


2d 2314-TYPE 
DISK 


2 3 4 5 6 7 

Number of Variable-Length Records x 10 6 

191 






Figure H.4 —System for a projected national bibliographic service 


No Editing 


or 

Partial Editing Ful1 Editm 9 



/ 

S SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE ON DEMAND REQUESTS 



192 











































Record Conversion and Editing Subsystem 

Perform format recognition (OCR or keyboard transcrip¬ 
tion; no editing or partial editing). 

Edit and format (keyboard transcription; full editing). 

Check validity. 

Produce formatted print. 

Perform file maintenance (new, corrected, or verified 
records). 

Subscription Service Subsystem 

Select records by user profile. 

Duplicate selected records. 

Data-Base-Related Subsystem 

Generate search code and threaded lists; add record 
to data base. 

Search on-demand. 

The interrelation of these programs is shown in figure H.4. 

2. Record Conversion and Editing Subsystem 

a. Perform Format Recognition (OCR or keyboard transcription; 
no editing or partial editing) 

The format recognition module would accept magnetic tape records 
that had received no editing or had been partially edited prior to input 
and would automatically analyze the data to convert the record into a 
tagged formatted internal processing record (see appendix G for a descrip¬ 
tion of format recognition). 


195 







It is apparent that a program of considerable complexity would 
be required to analyze records to the same degree of definition as is now 
attained entirely by human editing (see figure H.5). 

b. Edit and Format (keyboard transcription; full editing) 

The edit and format module would accept records that have been 

fully edited prior to input and transform the input format to the internal 
processing format. All tags, indicators, delimiters, etc., would be 
specified by an editor and input at conversion time (see figure H.6). 

c. Check Validity 

This program would check the records for content consistency and 
correctness, and would flag all machine-detectable errors to call them to 
the attention of the editors during proofing. This program would be used 
for both modules specified in a and b above (see figures H.5 and H.6). 

d. Produce Formatted Print 

This program would accept bibliographic records and produce 
formatted printouts for proofing and correction. The program would be 
used for the modules specified in a and b above. 

Consideration must be given to the printing of records in a data 
base containing a variety of alphabets. Since even English language records 
may contain words in nonroman alphabets, the Library of Congress had to 
face this problem for the MARC Distribution Service (for English language 
monographic cataloging data.) It was decided that the nonroman alphabets 
would be romanized until time permits a detailed analysis of the required 
character sets and the associated problems of input, manipulation, and 


194 





Figure H. 5--Subsystem for record conversion 
and editing with format recognition 


Raw 

Records 

Tape 



- L 

Conversion 

T~ 

Process 


Perform Format 
Recognition 
and 

Check Validity 


Formatted 
Records Tape 
(Includes Error 
Flags in Record) 


Corrected 
Records 
Tape 


Sorted 
Formatted 
Records Tape 





Working File 
of LC 
Cards N 


Any 

Previous 

Printouts 



Corrected f 

A Corrected 

Produce 

Merge 

— and —W 

V™ and ► 

Formatted 


New 6 V 

J New 

Print 


0 ° 


Perform 

File 

Maintenance 






Tape 
For Visual Editing 
Then Perform 
File Maintenance 


Verified 
Records 
Tape 



To 

Subscription 

Service 


Record Corrections 
and Verifications 
Tape 


Record 

Printouts 


Keyboard 

Corrections 

or 

Verifications 


Proofing 


195 








































Figure H.6—Subsystem for record conversion 
and editing without format recognition 



Edit, Format 
and Check 

1 

Keyboard 

Validity 

Li* 

Conversion 


Formatted 
Records Tape 
(Includes 
Error Flags 
in Records) 


Sorted Formatted 
Records Tape 


Corrected 
Records 
Tape 


Verified 
Records 
Tape 




Input 

Records 

Tape 



\ 


Working File 
of LC 
Cards 


Any 

Previous 

Printouts 



Corrected / 

Corrected 

Produce 

Merge 

— and -J 

and —► 

Formatted 

New A V 

/ New 

Print 


°°> 

v'V 


Perform 

File 

Maintenance 


Tape for 
Visual Editing 
Then Perform 
File Maintenance 



Record 

Printouts 


I 


Proofing 


Record Corrections 
and Verifications Tape 


Keyboard 

Corrections 

or 

Verifications 


To 

Subscription 

Service 


196 










































display. Any retrospective conversion project will be faced with similar 
decisions regarding the nonroman alphabets. 

Depending on the data base selected, the possible decision to 
preserve the vernacular form of a nonroman alphabet, and the desirability 
of being able to proof character for character, (i.e., the original repre¬ 
sentation of a character would be preserved in the printed output) dif¬ 
ferent methods of print capability may be postulated. • For example, a com¬ 
puter installation could be assumed to have a chain (or train) designed to 
include the Cyrillic alphabet as well as the roman alphabet. Naturally, 
since the number of characters of both alphabets would exceed the number 
of characters of a single alphabet, print speed would be reduced. 

If the data base contained more than one nonroman alphabet, a 
technique to segregate records by alphabet would have to be designed to 
allow operator intervention to change the chain (or train). On the other 
hand, an installation might find it expedient to have a chain (or train) 
limited to the roman alphabet, numerals, and punctuation. The greater 
number of alphabetic segments would enable the chain to print faster. In 
this case, if the record contained a diacritic and the character could 
not be printed, the proofer would have no way of reading and correcting 
the missing character. In the final analysis, a judgment would have to 
be made on the basis of cost (in terms of man hours vs. machine hours) as 
to the most efficient solution to the problem for any given data base 
(see figures H. 5 and H.6). 


197 







e. Perform File Maintenance (new, corrected, or verified 
records) 

The file maintenance module would accept new, corrected, or 
verified bibliographic records. New records would be written on a work¬ 
ing tape and a printout would be made for proofing purposes. Corrections 
would cause the equivalent bibliographic records to be modified and written 
on a corrected records tape and to be merged with new input in the next 
editing cycle. The verified records would be written on a verified records 
tape, which would be merged with the accumulated verified records for this 
distribution period. This program would be used for both modules specified 
in a and b above (see figures H.5 and H.6). 

3. Subscription Service Subsystem 

a. Select Records by User Profile 

This program would accept an accumulated verified records tape 
and generate output tapes of records selected according to user profiles. 

In addition to the verified records tape, a user profile tape would be 
used as input. This would have the users’ names, addresses, and account¬ 
ing information, grouped by profile (i.e., the category of record desired). 
One output of this program would be an updated user profile tape, contain¬ 
ing amended accounting information, plus data for any new users, whose 
profiles could be entered through the card reader. 

Assuming six magnetic tapes on the computer, three could contain 
user profiles so that one pass would suffice for three different profile 

selections. There would be only two types of profiles: those with only 

198 




one customer (a unique profile) and those with more than one. For the 
former case, a mailing label would be printed (or typed) while the tape 
was generated. For the latter case, the label information could be written 
on the selected records tape for use by the duplicate selected records 
program (see figure H.7). 

b. Duplicate Selected Records 

This program would accept the tape containing selected records 
from the previous program and generate duplicate copies of them for the 
appropriate number of users. If six tape drives were used, up to five 
duplicate tapes might be generated concurrently. The user information in 
the second file of the input tape would be used to print (or type) mail¬ 
ing labels as the duplicate tapes are written (see figure H.7). 

4. Data-Base-Related Subsystem 

a. Generate Search Code and Threaded List; Add Record to Data 
Base 

The search code referred to in this report involves automatic 
compression of specified machine-readable data by the method described by 
Rueeking. 2/ The code is constructed by compressing up to four words in a 
title and up to four more words representing last names of authors for a 
minimum of two and a maximum of eight four-letter codes. Ruecking claims 

2 ~. Ruecking, Frederick H., Jr. Bibliographic retrieval from bibliographic 
input; the hypothesis and construction of a test. Journal of library 
automation, v. 1, December 1968, 227-258. 

199 


351-845 0-69—14 






Figure H.7—Subsystem for subscription service and generation 
of search code and threaded list for data base 



Tape(s) in a Library 
for Back-up Information 


200 



























a high degree of uniqueness (98-99 percent) in the code resulting from a 
title. Such a technique might be used to generate an author/title index 
automatically and to relate it to the LC card number. 

Extensive research and testing is required to determine the most 
efficient system for bibliographic searching. Since this was impossible 
within the time frame of this study, it was assumed that the search code 
would be used in a threaded list structure. 

The maximum number of four-letter code groups that can result 
from this scheme can be easily calculated, since the first character may 
be any letter, the second and third may be any letter or blank, and the 
fourth may be any consonant or blank. The result is 26 x 27 x 27 x 21 = 
398,054-/ Even though some of the combinations are unlikely, the scheme 
assumes all of them are possible and an index is generated on a disk pack 
consisting of 32 bytes for each code group of the 398,034. This will 
require over 12 million bytes of storage. A rounded figure of 13 million 
bytes has been used for all calculations in the present report. This 
figure is less than one half of the capacity of one 2314 disk pack. The 
advantage of generating all possibilities would be that the index (here¬ 
after referred to as a permanent index), once created, would be fixed; that 
is, it would never need to be shifted because new records were added. Even 
more important, the position of the 32-byte field for a given code group 

3"] This assumes that diacritical marks and special characters in roman 
alphabet languages are disregarded. 


201 



could be directly calculated from the code group itself and searching 
would not be necessary. 

The 32 bytes for a code group in the permanent index would con¬ 
sist of eight 4-byte links pointing to threaded lists (hereafter referred 
to as list entries) containing the LC card numbers of all records with 
search codes (two to eight groups) that contained the group in that code 
position on the disk. 

A threaded list is a classic form of file organization used to 
access records from keys. In its simplest form, there are two groups of 
data: a key directory and records. Typically, the key directory, con¬ 
tains an attribute (name, code, or abbreviation), the address of the first 
record in storage possessing that attribute, and usually the list length 
(i.e., the total number of records that are referenced in the full list). 
The record will usually contain a major data subset and a series of links. 
Each link is associated with a particular key and is a pointer to a sub¬ 
sequent record also associated with the same key. There can be as many 
links associated with a record as there are keys associated with that 
record. The pointing from key directory to record, from record link to 
subsequent record, and from subsequent record link onward is called thread¬ 
ing, and there will be as many threads as links as keys. For example, 
link 1 of a possible eight links for a record for which the title compresses 
to AMER would link to the' LC card numbers of all records, for which the 
title compressed to the code group AMER. 

Given the permanent index, only a list entry (i.e., an entry 


202 


to the threaded list structure) would he needed for each record added to 
the data base. This list entry would consist of the LC card number, a 
flag byte, and two to eight 4-byte links to connect the entry in the list 
structure. It is assumed that seven bytes would be enough to contain a 
card number; the year and serial number can be expressed in packed decimal 
in four bytes, the alphabetic prefix, expressed in three bytes.^/ The 
flag byte would signify which links were present. Thus, if an author/title 
generated two codes for the title and one for the author, this byte would 
have the pattern IIOOIOOO 2 . 

There would only be one 4-byte link for every search code group 
generated from the author/title( s) of the record. Therefore, 40 bytes 
per record for this entry (7 plus 1 plus 32 [8x4]) would be the worst- 
case condition for overhead. In fact, this seems an extremely unlikely 
occurrence, since it would only occur for a title having four or more 
significant words in its title and four or more authors. However, this 
worst-case figure of 40 bytes overhead per record was used in volume 
projections. 

Given the above, the program to build the search code for a new 
record would extract the LC card number and construct the search code from 
the author/title (this could be done so easily that it might be desirable 
to carry the search code permanently in the data base record). The code 

V. This pattern will also accommodate the new 8 -digit LC card number which 
has no alphabetic prefix. 


203 



groups would then be used to locate links and the new card number would 
be linked into the structure. 

The other function of this program would be to add the record to 
the data base (hereafter referred to as main data base) on the larger mass 
storage device. This could be done in such a way that the records would 
be in ascending sequence on the LC card numbers. A possible method of 
referencing the records more efficiently than by a serial search (which 
would be implied if the records are in ascending order) would be to store 
the records in partitioned areas of storage according to the range of the 
number. This technique is sometimes called the "bucket" process. Each 
partitioned area would be referred to by a range of the numbers involved. 
This ordering would allow the retrieval of records, using the card number, 
to be effected using a simple binary search technique. 

It should be noted that the permanent index would point to a 
list entry containing the card number of a record, not the record itself. 
This would be necessary because, when a record was added to the data base 
there might not be room to store it in its proper place in card number 
order (one of the assumptions above). Therefore, the record would be 
stored where room was available and a reference made to its locations. As 
the number of these references increased over a period of time, the per¬ 
formance of referencing the data base would be degraded, and so the file 
should be reorganized periodically to restructure the data base in a more 
efficient manner. This could be done with impunity as long as the perman¬ 
ent index does not directly reference record positions (see figure H.7). 


204 


b. Search On-Demand 


This program would be essentially the converse of the previous 
one. It would allow a selected record to be retrieved by author/title or 
LC card number. 

Given an author/title request, this program could retrieve the 
card number. This would be accomplished by converting the author/title 
to a search code and looking up the list entry for each search code group 
in the permanent index. The links would be traced through the lists to 
locate a list entry with enough common links to satisfy a threshhold test. 
The linking could be done so that a simple test would reveal the point 
where the search had failed thus making it unnecessary to search to the 
end of every list. The result would be the list entry containing the 
card number of the record. 

The card number would then be used to retrieve the record exactly 
as if it were input in the first place. A binary search of "dividing the 
dictionary" technique could be used. The desired card number would be com¬ 
pared against the number of records in the physical center of the main data 
base which would have to be in ascending order by LC card number. If the 
desired number were less than the number at the center of the data base, 
the next test would be made in the middle of the first half of the data 
base. If the desired number were greater, the next test would be made in 
the middle of the bottom half of the data base. This process would con¬ 
tinue, halving each time, until the desired number was found. 

This technique has the advantage of limiting the number of such 


205 



tests that must be made. Where 2 n produces a number greater than or equal 
to the number of records, the maximum number of searches is equal to n. 

For example, with seven million records, a maximum of only 25 tests would 
need to be made because 2 22 = 4,194,302 and 2 2 3 = 8,388,608. At an average 
access time of 100 milliseconds on a disk (such as the Bryant 4000-series 
disk), this would equal a worst-case search time of 2.3 seconds. For con¬ 
venience, three seconds has been used for timing studies. 

The search could be reduced even further by using a table of 
"milestone" LC card numbers. These would be the card numbers of records 
occurring at regular intervals in the disk(s); for example, the number of 
the first record in every sector, every cylinder, etc. Such a table could 
be built after collecting the numbers by a pass through the disk(s) when 
the program was initialized. If this were done, a two-level binary search 
could be constructed, first in the "milestone" table and subsequently, 
when the disk area of search has been narrowed, in disk storage itself. 

The advantage to this technique is that a search in a table in memory is 
virtually instantaneous as compared to a 100-millisecond average disk 
access. The first few searches would be the most extensive and time con¬ 
suming if all were made against the disk, thereby biasing considerably 

O 

the average access time. In the "milestone" table, assuming only 256 (2°) 
values, the maximum number of disk searches would be reduced to 23 - 8 = 15, 
cutting the total search time to 1.5 seconds (see figure H.8). 

The following discussion describes the application of the threaded 


206 


Figure H.8—Subsystem for on-demand searches 



207 





























list structure to the storage and retrieval of bibliographic records for 
a national bibliographic service. 

Figure H.9—Diagram of a permanent index 


Code Group 1 (a) 
Code Group 2 (AA) 
Code Group 3 (AAA) 


Code Group n (AMER) 

Code Group 398,034 

(zzzz) 

A permanent index consisting of 398,034 sets of eight lists each 
would be generated. Each link would be a 4-byte pointer which, if non¬ 
zero, would contain the address of the first list entry in the threaded 
list for the specific code group (e.g., AMER) in a specific position in 
the search code (e.g., position 2). Starting with a title and its author(s), 
a search code would be constructed containing up to eight alphabetic code 
groups. In the particular search code assumed, exactly 398,034 different 
alphabetic code groups are possible. Some possible code groups are A, B, 
AMER, ZZZZ. Since each alphabetic code group may exist in up to eight 
positions of the search code, the permanent index permits up to eight links 
for each code group. For example, link 2 in the set of eight links cor¬ 
responding to code group AMER would point to the first list entry corre¬ 
sponding to a search code in which AMER exists in position 2. As the 
permanent index would comprise all possible code groups, the address of 


LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 


LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 


Position 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 


208 


































the eight-link index entry could be directly computed from the code group 
without searching. 

Figure H.10—Diagram of list entries 


7 Bytes l Byte 4 Bytes 4 Bytes 4 Bytes 


LC CARD NO. 

FLAG 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 



LC CARD NO. 

FLAG 

LINK 



LC CARD NO. 

FLAG 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK 

LINK LINK 

LINK LINK LINK 

LC CARD NO. 

FLAG 







LC CARD NO. 

FLAG 

LINK 



Each nonzero link of the permanent index would point to a list 


entry representing the first case in the list that satisfied the condi¬ 
tions of a given code group in a given position. First occurrence list 
entries would be pointed to by links in the permanent index, subsequent 
list entries would be pointed to by links in other list entries. A list 
entry would consist of an LC card number, a flag, and zero to eight links. 
The LC card number would be the primary access to the main data base of 
full records in large mass storage. The 8-bit flag byte would indicate 
which of the eight possible links (if any) were present. If no links were 
present, only one record (as represented by its LC card number) would have 
a search code that satisfied the particular code group in the particular 
position indicated. The presence of all eight links in a list entry would 
indicate that the record had eight code groups in its search code. Since 
two different code groups could not occupy the same position in the search 
code, each record would be represented by only one list entry, and there 


209 

























would be no link ambiguity. The list entries would have a variable length 
of eight to 40 bytes. 

Figure H.ll—Diagram of main data base 


RECORD 


RECORD 



RECORD 



RECORD 



Ascending 

sequence 

by 

LC card number 


The main data base would contain full bibliographic records in 
ascending sequence by 10 card number. The output information from the 
list entry would be the card number which would be used to locate the full 
records in the main mass storage. Several methods of locating the record 
from the card number would be possible: (l) a "binary search" which would 
eliminate successive halves of storage; (2) a direct search based on a 
starting location of a specified range of records (the "bucket" approach); 
or (5) the use of an intermediate directory of record addresses ordered 
by LC card number. 


5. Programming Effort Estimates 

The following estimates indicate the magnitude of the programming 
effort required to design, implement, and checkout the programs described 
in this appendix. 


210 














Program Man-years 

Format Recognition (OCR or keyboard trans¬ 
cription; no editing or partial editing) 3.0 

Edit and Format (Keyboard transcription; 

full editing) 2.0 

Formatted Print . 5 

Check Validity . 5 

Perform File Maintenance (new, corrected, 

and verified records) 2.0 

Select Records by User Profile 1.0 

Duplicate Selected Records .25 

Generate Search Code and Threaded List; 

Add Record to Data Base 2.0 

Search On-Demand 1 .0 

Service Programs 2 . 0 

Total 14.25 


On a contractual basis at an estimated $35*000 per man-year, the 
total programming effort would amount to about $499*000. An in-house effort 
calculated at $15*000 per man-year would cost approximately $214,000. An 
in-house effort to complete these programs would probably require a greater 
elapsed time because of the difficulties in recruiting and retaining quali¬ 
fied programmers. 

E. Computer Processing Time 
1. Assumptions 

The following assumptions have been made in computing the data in 


211 






this section. They are based largely on present MARC II experience at the 
Library of Congress on the IBM J>60/K0 with DOS. Needless to say, opera¬ 
tions on a more powerful machine (an IBM 360/50 or comparable equipment) 
or in a multiprogramming environment would result in different time esti¬ 
mates. 

a. The conversion rates for input are assumed to be one to seven 
million records over a four-year period. Using 208 weeks in 
four years, this rate is 5*000 to 35*000 records per week or 
1,000 to 7,000 per day. 

b. Magnetic tape recorded at 800 bits per inch is assumed to 
hold 20,000, 500-byte records. The time to read or write a 
full tape at 60 KC is assumed to be six minutes. 

c. The number of times a record will cycle through the machine 
is a function of the type of pre-editing a record received 
and whether the record was compared with the LC Official Cata¬ 
log. A full discussion of the factors involved in recycling 
appears in Section E2. 

d. The workloads for the subscription service and on-demand 
record requests cannot be estimated with a high degree of 
confidence. On-demand requests have been assumed to be at 
the rate of 2,000 per day: 3° percent by author/title, the 
remainder by LC card number. 


212 


2. Estimated Processing Rates of Programs 

a. Perform Format Recognition for unedited records^/: 4 seconds 

per record 

b. Perform Format Recognition for partially edited records^/: 

3 seconds per record 

c. Edit and Format: 3 seconds per record 

The rates for a, h, and c were estimated from the MARC System 
Pre-Edit/Format Edit/Content Edit programs which require a total of three 
seconds to process a record. Format recognition for unedited records was 
considered to be much more complex. 

d. Produce Formatted Print: 3*4 seconds per record 

e. Perform File Maintenance: 3 seconds per record 

f. Generate Search Code and Threaded List; Add Record to Data 

Base: 6 seconds per record 

This estimate was based on prior experience in index building 

programs. 

g. Search On-Demand: 3.9 seconds per record 

This was considered to take approximately the same processing 
time as does Generate Search Code and Threaded List; Add Record to Data 
Base. Half of the time should be spent searching the search code structure 
and half in retrieving the record. It was assumed that search on-demand 
requests would break down according to present 1C Card Division experience: 

J~- Assumes a validity checking process by a common program. 


213 



30 percent by author/title and 70 percent by LC card number. The time for 
an author/title search was assumed to be 6 seconds/record; 3 seconds/ 
record was assumed for an LC card number search. Therefore, an average 
time of 3.9 seconds was used for estimating search on-demand per record. 

h. Sort/Merge (including preprocessing^ for printing records 
to be compared against the LC Official Catalog 
Many techniques for internal sorting are available: exchanging, 
insertion, shell exchange, counting, P-operations, and others. A partic¬ 
ular strategy can be chosen as most efficient if (l) special data char¬ 
acteristics have been analyzed, (2) file size is known, and (3) certain 
hardware techniques are used. Manufacturer sorting software takes one or 
more of these factors into account, but it does not allow a change in 
strategy for each program execution. 

The amount of available core directly affects the size and the 
number of strings that will be developed by the internal sort. 

The following assumptions have been made to complete sort/merge 

time: 

1. 65,556 addressable bytes of memory. 

2. The buffering capability of one selector-channel with IBM 
S/360 DOS (estimate based on MARC System experience). 

6^ Preprocessing is a pass executed prior to the sort/merge to build a 
sort key that can be used to approximate library filing order. The 
calculations for preprocessing time are based on the MARC system 
experience. 


214 



cess. 


3- Access speeds for third-generation equipment. 

4. Undefined records to the preprocessor; variable records 
input to sort; undefined records output for sort. 

3- Little or no inherent sequencing exists in input. 

6. One sort key of four to 10 characters in length. 

Table H. l--Preprocessing and sort time for specified numbers of records 


Number of input records 
(in thousands) 

Time (in minutes)i/ 

Sort 

Pre¬ 

proces¬ 

sor 

Total 

2 

4-5 

1-5 

6 

5 

6 

3 

9 

7 

9-5 

4.2 

13.7 

10 

13 

5 

18 

20 

33 

8 

4 l 

30 

49 

14 

63 

40 

65 

20 

85 

50 

81 

26 

107 

60 

107 

36 

143 

70 

125 

42 

167 

80 

142 

48 

190 

90 

2/ 

54 

- 


1 . Set-up time is not included. 

2. 81,780 records is maximum for the configuration 
assumed for the table. 

There are a number of interrelated variables affecting this pro- 
Memory size affects the internal sort that is chosen. The sorting 


215 


351-845 0-69—15 









technique affects the length of the strings that are produced. The size 
of available core affects the string length. The string length determines 
the number of strings. The amount of data affects the number of strings. 
The number of strings determines the most advantageous merging technique. 
The best merging technique is dependent on the number of tape units and 
on the original sort technique used. An additional complicating factor is 
that the number of records that can be kept in memory varies with record 
size. The time-estimates were obtained from various formulas modified by 
experience with processing of MARC II records. 

i. Select Records by User Profile and Duplicate Selected 
Records: 6 minutes per tape 

The processing rates for these two programs are considered to be 
magnetic tape input/output bound. The rate for a full tape (20,000 records) 
is six minutes. This figure was used consistently to calculate the run 
times for various numbers of records. Actually, in a real situation, the 
processing times for larger numbers of records might be somewhat reduced 
by duplicating more than one tape at a time. 

5. Recycling of Records 

To calculate machine running times for the technical alternatives 
described in chapter 6, it was necessary to make certain a priori estimates 
about the percentage of records that would contain errors because the for¬ 
mat recognition program would assign incorrect content designators. These 
errors would be corrected by the human editor during proofing. The cor¬ 
rection would be re-keyed and recycled through the machine system to correct 

216 


the machine-readable data base. In addition, regardless of the type of 
pre-editing given the record and the performance of the format recognition 
program, some editing and keying errors would occur under all conditions 
both in original editing and keying of the record and reediting and re¬ 
keying. Therefore, for calculation purposes, the following assumptions 
were made: 

a. Fifty percent of records receiving full pre-editing will 
be rejected for incorrect tagging, keying errors, etc., 
during the first proofing process. 

b. One hundred percent of the unedited records processed by 
format recognition will be rejected during the first proof¬ 
ing process. 

c. Sixty percent of the partially edited records processed by 
format recognition will be rejected during the first proof¬ 
ing process. 

d. Ten percent of records edited and re-keyed after proofing 
will be rejected during each proofing process after the 
first. 

In addition to these assumptions allowance had to be made for 
the percentage of otherwise acceptable records that would recycle because 
of changes made when they were compared with the Official Catalog. On the 
assumption that catalog comparison would result in an average of 20-per cent 
change across the board, the 50 -percent reject rate was raised to 60 per¬ 
cent (the 50 percent rejected plus 20 percent of the 50 percent accepted) 


217 


and the 60-percent reject rate to 68 percent (the 60 percent rejected plus 
20 percent of the 40 percent accepted). 

No measure was made relative to the number of errors per record; 
that is, one error in a record is considered a reject record equal to a 
reject record with many errors. 

The number of records in the machine editing cycle at any one 
time consists of the following: 

a. New records 

b. Records corrected and re-keyed from the previous day’s new 
records 

c. Sum of all records from previous days still in the system 
which have been recorrected and re-keyed. 

The total number of records in the cycle after the first pass 

can be expressed as a summation of terms in a geometric progression: 

2 a 

a + ar + ar .... = where a is the number of rejections after the 
initial cycle, and r (the number of rejections after each subsequent cycle) 
is less than one. 

Let n = number of new records per day. 

p = percentage of new records rejected on the first pass of 
of records through editing cycle and re-entered on the 
second day. 

a = np = number of rejects input for a second pass through 
the machine editing cycle, 
r = .1 


218 


Therefore, summation of all records in cycle, £ = n + = 

l-.l 

n = n ^ + The reject rates for all possible conditions 

are as follows: 

(1) No editing, no comparison with Official Catalog: 100 per¬ 
cent reject rate from first proofing. 

(2) No editing, comparison with Official Catalog: 100 percent 
reject rate from first proofing. 

(5) Partial editing, no comparison with Official Catalog: 60 
percent reject rate from first proofing. 

(4) Partial editing, comparison with Official Catalog: 68 per¬ 
cent reject rate from first proofing. 

(5) Full editing, no comparison with Official Catalog: 50 per¬ 
cent reject rate from first proofing. 

(6) Full editing, comparison with Official Catalog: 60 percent 
reject rate from first proofing. 

(l) and (2) are the same since the assumption of 100 percent reject rate 
due to no editing cannot be adjusted to a higher percentage to reflect the 
20 percent change caused by the comparison with the Official Catalog, i.e., 
the 20 percent is subsumed by the ,100 percent. 

Assuming 1,000 records a day: 

(1) and (2) for p = 1.00, £= 1,000[H l.ll(l)] =2,110 

(3) for p = .6, ■£= l,000[l+l.ll(.6)] =1,666 
(It) for p = .68, £ = l,000[l+l. 11(.68)] =1,755 
(5) for p = .5, £ = 1,000( 1+1.ll(.5)] =1,555 


219 


(6) for p = . 6 / 51 = l,000[l+l.ll(.6)] = 1,666 


4. Processing Times 

Tables H. 2 and H.3 show the computer processing times for input 
by various technical alternatives to produce 1,000 to 7*000 new records per 
day. Table H.4 shows the computer time for performing maintenance and 
service functions on a weekly basis at different production levels.- The 
limit of the system would be reached at a daily conversion rate of about 
5,000 new cataloging records. This would amount to approximately one 
million records a year and the maximum of five million records would be 
reached in about five years. At 5*000 records a day, the computer pro¬ 
cessing time would approach 24 hours per day and a larger computer or a 
second computer would be required. 


220 


>5 

aJ 

P 

0 

ft 

co 

p 

O 

O 

0 

p 

£ 

a) 

d 

8 

O 


P 

o 

d 

O 

•H 

CO 

P 

f 

d 

O 

O 

P 

o 


bD 

a 

_ *H 
P -p 
•H 
P 
CO 0 

<d i 

-P CD 
d P 
d ft 

ft 

o 

*d 

a <d 

* g 

CO -p 
^ >5 

5 ^ 


co 

0 

I 

•H 

ft 

bD 

d 

•H 

CO 

CO 

(D 

O 

O 

& 

S3 

d 

& 

O 

o 

I 

I 

CVJ 

w 

CD 

i—I 

ft 

cd 

Eh 


bD 

£ 

•H 

-P 

•H 

ft 

CD 

i—I 


bD 

d 

•H 

P 

•H 

ft 

CD 


cd 

•H 

ft 

a 

ft 


bD 

d 

•H 

P 

•H 

ft 

CD 

O 


bD 

o d 

H O 
cd co 
P -H 


cd 

o 

ft 

p 

•H 


a 

& 

o 

o 


bD 

H 

cd d 
P o 
cd co 
o »H 

P c3 
d ft 

2 s 

ft o 
p o 
•H 


bD 

q d 

H O 
cd co 
P *H 


cd 

o 

ft 

p 

•H 


& 

& 

O 

o 


bD 

O 

h d 
cd O 


P 

cd 

o 

d 


CO 
•H 

a 

s 

o o 
ft o 
p 
•H 


bD 

o d 

H O 
cd co 
P -H 
cd 


S3 


5 

EH 


p 

<D „ 
ft ft 

6 o 


CO 

O 

O 

vo 

vo 

O 

O 

O 

vo 

vo 

O 

O 

O 

vo 

vo 

0 

P 

•\ 

1 —1 

•N 

H 

•N 

1 —1 

rH 


§ 

•H 

EH 


p 

0 

p 

CO 

•d 

(j 

0 

0 

ir\ 

LPv 

p 

M 

0 

0 

0 

0 

LPv 

LPv 

§ 

0 

0 

0 

LPv 

LPv 



0 

p 

•\ 

r—1 

*\ 

rH 

»N 

rH 

rH 


S 

•H 

Eh 


P 

<D 

ft ft 
S O 


co 

ft 

P 

O 

o 

CD 


•H 

EH 


p 

(D , 
P ft 
S O 


CO 

ft 

p 

O 

o 

CD 

P 


§ 

•H 

EH 


§ 

Eh 


§ 

•H 

P 

bD 

d 

•H 

CO 

CO 

CD 

O 

O 

& 


ft 

p 

o 

o 

CD 

p 


CO 

ft 

d 

o 

o 

CD 

CO 


O 

LTN 

• • 

o 


o 

ir\ 

• • 

o 


o 

LTv 


O 

o 

o 


o 

lf\ 

• • 

o 


o 

o 

o 

•s 

rH 


o 

• • 

rH 


o 

• • 

rH 


LTN 

O 


-3- 

• • 

rH 


OJ 

o 


co 

OJ 


LTN 

o 

• • 

o 


o 

o 

o 

•N 

rH 


OJ 

O 

• • 

o 


o 

o 

o 

*\ 

rH 


Lf\ 

o 

• • 

o 


VO 

-4 


LPv 

LPv 

•v 


l?v 

• • 

rH 


vo 

VO 

VO 


8 


CVJ 


OJ 

o 

• • 

o 


o 

o 

• • 

CVJ 




rev 


OJ 


co 

n 


CO 

CVJ 

• • 

H 


LPv 

LPv 


rP\ 

CVJ 

• • 

H 


VO 

vo 

vo 


VO 

-4- 

rH 


V 

p 

& 

P 

0 

P 

CO 

"d 

f . 

0 

O 

O 

O 

p 

O 

P 

H 

0 

0 

0 

p 

0 

O 

1 —1 


•H 

O 


0 

0 

O 

1 —1 

1 —1 



d 


•s 

•s 


•\ 



& 


rH 

rH 

OJ 

OJ 


vo 

-4 



CO 

O 

O 

O 

0 

p 

P 

O 

(j 

O 

O 

rH 

rH 

0 

O 

O 

rH 

rH 


0 

P 

rH 

rH 

•N 

OJ 

•s 

OJ 


ON 

LT\ 

• • 

N~N 


CO 

• • 


8 


-4 


ON 

-4 

• • 


LPv 


LPv 

LPv 

• • 

-4 



P 

P 

rH 

d 

g 

O 


0 


O 

O 

ft 

O 

3 

O 

CO 

0 

P 



ft 


d 


£ 

0 

O 

OJ 

-4 

cd 

co 


bD 

> 

p 


1 —1 

• 


0 

*d 

q 

r—1 


rPv 

• 

N"\ ro 

d 

p 

p 

1—1 

O 

p 




0 

•H 

3 

cd 

> 

0 




•H 

d 

0 

P 

d 

P 




p 

cd 


cd 

•H 


d 



•H 

0 

Q 

0 


0 

0 



d 

P 

P 


d 

4 

•H 



bD 



P 

0 

•rH 


P P 

6) p 

8 <8 

<D p 

p o ft 
d 

P cd 


P 

O 


P 

•H 

ft 

w 


p 

p 

o 

Cd 


d 

•H 


K^| 

CD 

CD O 
H d 

•rH Cd 

ft d 
^ CD 

S ■£ 
p d 

r° *d 

Pi cd 
P 6 
CD 
Ph 


cd 

P 

o 

Eh 


co 

co 

CD 

rH 

CO 

•H 

ft 

co 

cd 

P 

<D 

ft 

P 

•n 

ft 

p 

O 

o 

CD 

P 

ft 

CD 

P 

•H 

ft 

0 


P 

<8 

p 

p 

o 

CO 

I 

cd 

§ 

cd 


d 

o 

CO 

•H 

a 

& 

o 

• o 

bD 

d bD 

•H o 


co 


Hft 
h d 
cd o 
•H o 
p 0 


o cd 
>s P 
o cd 
0 o 
P 

, ft 
ft p 

O -H 

d * 
• O co 
P *H Tj 
cd co ^ 

0 co o 

d d o 
h o 0 
H co ^ 

0 >> ft bD 
d H d 
H P cd -h 
o p 
cd p d 
X o -h 


0 

ft 

P 

P 

o 

d 

o 

•rH 

P 

•H 

ft 

ft 

cd 


P co tj 0 cm p 

ai p a 

O P KV 
o o w p 

0 d o 

P d P 
0 o 


cd w 
0 
o P 
P *H 


P P *H 0 

^ ^ oj 3 -p a 

ft O* ft o -H 


0 0 
•rH P 


• i—I 
CO p 
fd HH 
d 


C/3 


• T* 
>> p 
cd O 
'd o 
0 

0 p 
d 

P 
0 

d w 


CO 0 p 
CO 0 CO 

H ^ Tjp 0 
ft*d d cd 0 p 

ftp op 0 Eh 
cd O o 
u (U (U 

CO 0 CO 4 
•HP &H 

_ OJ 

P'd H 

•H 0 • • 

p 'd 

d -h w ^ 

0 T 3 D o 

jd <d ?h o d 

►2 *H 0 

>? g. P 

d 1 

0 P - - 

P 0 dJ Tl 

ft d 
d do 
o cd o w o o 

o co 0 

0 P *h d S co 

CO O ^ O 0 

_ cd op_4- 

4 w ft 0 co . 

C S to 

to H o co 

0 p O KV 
P P -0 

•rj d bD p 

d S q o p 

P H p 
0 O cd 

P P P 0 

_ ^ aJ 6 

'd o -h 

p d -p d ft • 

o cd -p p g -d 

° Kn ? 2 ° ° Jh 

0 bp o p o o o 

p d p p - 

•H -p 

TJ P *H CO 

0 -H ^ 0 d H 

■P 'd co 0 cd p 

•H W CO cd P P 0 

'd 0 o cd ft 

• P P 

„ co o o 

Nod 
d 0 *h 

d o p 

cd o d _ _ 

0 p o *d P 

o co o co d *h 

P P h cd ? 

c3 ^ 


d 

•H 

CO 


CO 

•H 

d 

G 

CO 

•H 

S3 


'd 

0 


0 O 
P bD 0 
o p 


0 o 
p 

p p 

o d 
o o 
p 


KV 

p 


co 


0 >5 0 ft 0 Tj 

•h ft & B d p 


O d P -H P 

0 cd £ o p 

p ^ p d d 

x p co d -H 

p 0 o tj P p 

cd rH co p< 

S ft o co 

S 0 O *H 0 


P ~ - 

O o P 0 
h O H p 


OJ 


fcH 


N^-4 


in the two-up format is 3.8 seconds 






















Table H.3—Daily computer processing times 


Type of editing 
and processing function 

Processing times (hours and minutes) for specified 

of records converted per day 

numbers 

1,000 

2,000 

3,000 

4,000 

5,000 

6,000 

7,000 

No editing; without catalog comparison 

Record conversion and editing 

i : 55 

9:50 

14:45 

19:40 

24:35 

29:30 

34:25 

Search on demandi/ 

2:10 

2:10 

2:10 

2:10 

2:10 

2:10 

2:10 

Total 

7:05 

12:00 

16:55 

21:50 

26:45 

31:40 

36:35 

No editing; with catalog comparison 

Record conversion and editing 

5:04 

10:08 

15:12 

20:16 

25:20 

30:24 

35:28 

Search on demandi/ 

2:10 

2:10 

2:10 

2:10 

2:10 

2:10 

2:10 

Total 

7:14 

12:18 

17:22 

22:26 

27:30 

32:34 

37:38 

Partial editing; without catalog comparison 
Record conversion and editing 

3-^9 

7:38 

11:27 

15:16 

19:05 

22:54 

26:43 

Search on demandi/ 

2:10 

2:10 

2:10 

2:10 

2:10 

2:10 

2:10 

Total 

5:59 

9:48 

13:37 

17:26 

21:15 

25:04 

28:53 

Partial editing; with catalog comparison 

Record conversion and editing 

4:09 

8:18 

12:27 

16:36 

20:45 

24:54 

29:03 

Search on demandi/ 

2:10 

2:10 

2:10 

2:10 

2:10 

2:10 

2:10 

Total 

6:19 

10:28 

14:37 

18:46 

22:55 

27:04 

31:13 

Full editing; without catalog comparison 

Record conversion and editing 

3:38 

7:16 

10:54 

14:32 

18:10 

21:48 

25:26 

Search on demandi/ 

2:10 

2:10 

2:10 

2:10 

2:10 

2:10 

2:10 

Total 

5:48 

9:26 

13:04 

16:42 

20:20 

23:58 

27:36 

Full editing; with catalog comparison 

Record conversion and editing 

3 = 59 

7:58 

11:57 

15:56 

19:55 

23:54 

27:53 

Search on demandi/ 

2:10 

2:10 

2:10 

2:10 

2:10 

2:10 

2:10 

Total 

6:09 

10:08 

14:07 

18:06 

22:05 

26:04 

30:03 


1 . Based on 2,000 records per day. 


222 

























Table H.4—Weekly computer processing times for specified functions, 
by number of records converted per week 



Processing time (hours and minutes) for specified numbers of 
records converted per week 

Fimct xon 

5,000 

10,000 

15,000 

20,000 

25,000 

30,000 

35 >000 

Merge daily verified record 
tapesi/ 

0:03 

0:06 

0:09 

0:12 

0:l6 

0:19 

0:22 

Generate search code and 
threaded list and add 
record to data base 

8:20 

l6:40 

25:00 

33:20 

Ul:40 

50:00 

58:20 

Select records by user 
profile 

0:08 

0:12 

0:15 

0:19 

0:22 

0:26 

0:30 

Duplicate selected records 

0:21 

0:30 

0:39 

0:48 

0:57 

1:06 

1:15 

Total 

8:52 

17:28 

26:03 

34:39 

43:15 

51:51 

60:27 


1 . In an operating situation merging would probably be a daily operation. Since the merge 
time depends on file size, however, it is not feasible to calculate the time on this 
basis. The weekly figures in this table provide an indication of the time that might 


be required. 


223 














Appendix I 

STAFF COMPLEMENTS AND UNIT COSTS 

Table 1.1 presents a detailed analysis of the staff complements 
for each conversion function for all 20 technical alternatives considered 
in this study. Only editing and input are true variables. Project direc¬ 
tion and quality control are constant for all conversion methods and when 
catalog comparison applies, the same size staff is required. 

Table 1.2 gives man/machine costs for each function for the 20 
technical alternatives. Here the variations are more evident, ranging 
from a low of $1.18 (E2) to a high of $2.09 (j4). It is more accurate, 
however, to compare the low and high figures for conversion without cata¬ 
log comparison ($1.18 and $1.77) and those for conversion with catalog 
comparison ($1.51 and $2.09). 


224 



-4" 

-4 

UN 


CO 

UA 

CO 




LtA 

rH 

rH 

i—1 








rH 


H 

-4- 

KA 

UA 


U-\ 

t- 


h> 


UA 

OJ 


rH 

On 


-4 

M 

-4- 

UA 

UA 

Y3 

3 

Lf\ 

rH 

118 


i—1 

-4* 

KA 

UA 


UA 

a- 


M 


UA 

OJ 


rH 

ON 


tE£ 

-4 

UA 

AD 

CO 

Lf\ 

00 


m 


Lf\ 

OJ 

1 — 1 

i—1 

rH 








i—1 


• — i 

-4 

KA 

UA 

i 

UA 

c- 


K 


UN 

OJ 

rH 

ON 


KA 

-4 

UA 

1—1 

CO 

UA 

KA 


e> 


KA 

OJ 

rH 

1 - 1 

0A 


OJ 

-4 

OJ 

o 


UA 

rH 


05 


KA 

OJ 


r—1 

[A- 









> 








•H 








-p 

KA 

-4 

UA 

rH 

CO 

UA 

KA 

c3 

fH 


KA 

OJ 

rH 

rH 

ON 

C 







?H 








a) 


-4 

OJ 

o 


UA 

rH 

H 

cd 

1—1 

ft 


KA 

OJ 


rH 

c— 

KA 

-4* 

UA 

1—1 

CO 

LT\ 

KA 

cti 

w 


KA 

OJ 

rH 

i—1 

0A 

o 
















& 

OJ 

-4* 

CVI 

o 


UA 

rH 

o 

ft 


KA 

OJ 


1-1 

c— 

<u 








Eh 

KA 

-3" 

KA 

OJ 

00 

UA 

s 


Q 


’ 4 

OJ 

rH 

rH 








1—1 


OJ 

^4 

O 

rH 


UA 

o 


Q 


4 

OJ 


rH 

CO 


KA 

-4 

KA 

OJ 

CO 

Lf\ 

0J 


O 


4 

OJ 

rH 

rH 

o 

rH 


OJ 

.-4 

O 

1—1 


Lf\ 

o 


o 


4 

OJ 


rH 

CO 


KA 

-4 

KA 

OJ 

CO 

UA 

0J 


PQ 


4 

OJ 

rH 

rH 

o 

rH 


OJ 

4" 

O 

rH 


UA 

o 


cq 


4 

OJ 


rH 

CO 


KA 

4" 

KA 

OJ 

CO 

LT\ 

OJ 


c 


4 

H 

rH 

i—1 

ON 


OJ 

4" 

O 

rH 


Lf\ 

o 


< 


-4* 

rH 


rH 

t— 








rH 








cd 








-P 






a 


O 



c 



o 


EH 



o 



CO 



£ 


•H 



•rH 

rH 


o 


-p 



h 

o 




o 



3 

& 



-p 


0) 



-p 


o 





g 

a 







o 

o 


3 


t3 



o 

o 




-p 

bD 


bO 

>> 




o 

£ 


o 

-p 




<u 


-p 

rH 

•rl 




•ro 

-P 

3 

aJ 

rH 




o 

•H 

ft 

-P 

aJ 




& 

w 

3 

H 

cd 
o 

I 





























Table 1.2—Man/machine unit costs for each function, by technical alternative 




O 

D— 

KN 

.002 

0 

0 

KN 

VO 


s 

0 

CVJ 

LfN 


1 


- 3 - 

S' 

8 

0 

0 

1—J 

0 

0 

KN 

00 

CVJ 

H 

CO 

1 

KN 

O 

vo 

CVJ 

t— 

CVJ 

s 

• 



-CO- 













CVJ 















-ee- 



0 

c- 

KN 

CVJ 

0 

Lf\ 

KN 

co 



Ov 


LTN 

IN- 



s 

0 

0 

0 

rH 

co 

co 

co 

| 

1 

CVJ 

1 

IN- 


f—1 
•"D 

0 

0 

0 

O 

CVJ 

CVJ 

c- 



0 


CVJ 

• 

IN- 

• 



-CO- 













H 

-€£- 



0 

IN- 

Kv 

OJ 

O 

0 

co 

VO 


s 

CVJ 

LfN 

LfN 



s 

0 

0 

0 

H 

0 

1—1 

rH 

1 

KN 

vo 

£■— 

KN 


-4 

0 

0 

0 

O 

KN 

H 

co 


0 

O 

OJ 

CVJ 

ON 

• 


H 

















-CO- 













-€0- 



0 

IN- 

KN 

CVJ 

O 

lf\ 

CO 

co 



ON 


LfN 




s 

0 

0 

0 

1—1 

CO 

H 

co 

1 

1 

CVJ 

1 


1—1 


rH 

0 

0 

0 

O 

OJ 

H 

in- 



O 


OJ 

vo 


M 

• 










• 


• 

• 



-CO- 













-€0- 



0 

IN- 

KN 

CVJ 

O 

0 

KN 

VO 


600 

CVJ 

LfN 

LfN 

IN- 

CO 


_4 

s 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

H 

O 

0 

KN 

8 

rH 

CO 

1 

KN 

O 


OJ 


w 

-CO- 









• 

• 

• 

• 

• 















-€0- 



0 

IN- 

KN 

CVJ 

O 

LfN 

KN 

co 



ON 


LfN 



HI 

s 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

H 

O 

co 

CVJ 

8 

CO 

IN- 

1 

1 

CVJ 

O 

‘ 

CVJ 

LfN 

LfN 


■co- 













H 















-€0- 



0 

in- 

KN 

CVJ 

O 


KN 

H 


s 

0 

• 

CVJ 

LTN 

LfN 



KN 

O 

s 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1—J 

O 

ai 

KN 

CVJ 

CVJ 

LfN 

KN 

O 

• 

8 

• 

tN- 

OJ 

• 

ON 

vo 

• 



-CO- 













H 
















-£0- 



0 

o- 

KN 

CVJ 

O 

0 

KN 

CO 



ON 


LfN 




s 

0 

O 

0 

H 

KN 

KN 

IN- 

^?n| 

1 

CVJ 

1 


vo 


CVJ 

O 

0 

O 

0 

O 

CVJ 

CVJ 

-4 


O 


CVJ 

KN 


-CO- 













H 

-€0- 


% 


0 

IN- 

KN 

CVJ 

O 

H 

ON 

H 


s 

0 

CVJ 

LfN 

LfN 

•H 

-P 

KN 

ft 

s 

0 

0 

O 

O 

0 

0 

H 

O 

-4 

CVJ 

8 

OJ 

LTN 

kn| 

KN 

O 

VO 

CVJ 

C- 

CVJ 

-4 . 

LfN 

cd 










• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

d 


-CO- 













H 

-€0- 

u 






O 









0 


0 

t- 

KN 

cv 

O 

ON 

CO 



ON 


LfN 


s 

OJ 

s 

0 

0 

O 

O 

0 

0 

H 

O 

KN 

CVJ 

8 

tN- 

-4 


1 

CVJ 

0 

1 

tN- 

CVJ 

H 

CVJ 

cd 

ft 










• 


• 

• 

,d 


-CO- 













H 

-€0- 

O 

cd 


0 

in- 

KN 

CVJ 

O 

1—1 

H 

H 


s 

CVJ 

LfN 

LfN 


0 


s 

0 

O 

0 

H 

-4 

Lf\ 

CVJ 


KN 

VO 

IN- 

H 

KN 

0 

O 

0 

O 

CVJ 

O 

LTN 

0 

O 

CVJ 

CVJ 

LfN 

U 

ft 

• 








• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

O 

-CO- 













H 
















-€0- 

d 


0 


KN 

CVJ 

O 

O 

1—1 

CO 

^Nj 


ON 


LfN 

Jh 

OJ 

s 

0 

O 

0 

H 

KN 

LTN 

o- 

1 

CVJ 

1 

IN- 

co 

0 

ft 

0 

O 

0 

O 

CVJ 

O 

-4 


O 


OJ 

r-H 

0 











• 


• 

• 

0 


-CO- 













1—1 

-€0- 

d 
















0 

c*- 

KN 

a 

O 

CVJ 


O 

IN- 

s 

CVJ 

LfN 

LfN 




s 

0 

O 

0 

H 

Lf\ 

-4 

8 

KN 

8 

IN- 

CVJ 


KN 

0 

O 

0 

O 

CVJ 

rH 

VO 

0 

O 

CVJ 

CO 

ft 

ft 














• 

-p 


-CO- 













H 

-€0- 

w 
















0 


0 

c- 

KN 

8 

O 

H 

3 $ 

fc- 

O- 


ON 


LfN 


0 


s 

0 

O 

1—1 

-4 

ON 

8 

1 

CVJ 

l 

O- 

ON 

OJ 

0 

O 

O 

O 

CVJ 

H 

LTN 


O 


CVJ 

-4 


ft 











• 


• 

• 


-CO- 













H 

-€0- 



0 

c- 

KN 

OJ 

O 

CVJ 

co 

O 

tr- 

600 

CVJ 

LfN 

LfN 



KN 

O 

s 

0 

0 

O 

O 

O 

O 

H 

O 

LT\ 

CVJ 

8 

-4 

VO 

8 

KN 

O 

VO 

CVJ 

IN- 

CVJ 

CVJ 



-CO- 













H 

-€0- 



0 

IN- 

KN 

CVJ 

O 

1—1 

CO 

O- 

[>- 


ON 


LfN 



OJ 

O 

s 

0 

0 

O 

O 

0 

0 

1—J 

O 

-4 

OJ 

8 

ON 

LfN 

8 

1 

CVJ 

O 

• 

1 

IN- 

CVJ 

• 

ON 

KN 

• 



-CO- 













H 

-€0- 


















0 















s 

IN- 

KN 

cv 

O 

CVJ 

H 

O 

CH 

s 

CVJ 

LfN 

LfN 



KN 

0 

O 

0 

H 

LT\ 

8 

-4 

8 

KN 

vo 

IN- 

CN- 


ft 

• 

0 

O 

0 

O 

OJ 

vo 

0 

O 

CVJ 

CVJ 

vo 



-CO- 

• 

• 











1—1 



0 

in- 

KN 

CVJ 

O 

H 

H 

IN- 



ON 


LfN 

-€0- 


CVJ 

s 

0 

0 

O 

O 

0 

0 

H 

O 

-4 

CVJ 

8 

ON 

LTN 

8 

1 

CVJ 

O 

1 

(N- 

CVJ 

-4 

KN 


ft 











• 


• 

• 



-CO- 













1 —1 

- 60 - 



0 

c- 

KN 

OJ 

O 

CO 

O 


s 

CVJ 

LfN 

LfN 




s 

0 

O 

0 

H 

KN 

C- 

-4 

8 

KN 

vo 

IN- 

ON 


KN 

0 

O 

0 

O 

H 

H 

VO 

0 

O 

CVJ 

CVJ 

VO 


< 

• 

• 

• 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 



-CO- 













H 

- 60 - 



0 

IN- 

KN 

CVJ 

O 

IN- 

IN- 

t>- 


ON 


LfN 


OJ 

C 

s 

• 

0 

0 

O 

O 

0 

0 

H 

O 

21 

D- 

H 

ON 

LTN 

s 

1 

CVJ 

O 

• 

1 

N- 

OJ 

• 

vo 

KN 

• 



-CO- 













H 





-P 











-d 

0 




-p 

0 




0 







d 




0 

w 

w 













M 


d 


> 











d 

d 


£>5 


0 


d 



d 


0 



d 

d 

3 

ft 


d 


0 



0 




d 

0 

d 

0 

0 0 




•H 



w 




0 

•H 

0 

0 


0 


-P 


•P 




H 



•H 

-p 

0 

0 

bO 


d 






O 



-P 

0 

0 

d 

C 

d 


ft 


d 



3 

u 

cd 


O 

0 

d 

bO 

•H 

d 


d 


bO 



ft 

■P 

-P 


d 

d 

bO 
d d 

O -H 

d £ 

3 


•H 


O 



£ 

d 

O 


s 

•H 

d 

d 

•H 

bO 

O H 
•H *n 
-P 4- 

.d 

bO 


O 

^1 

O 

0 

u 

bO 

a 

bO 

d 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Eh 



-p 

H d 

d 

00 c 

d 


b0 


•H 

-p 

bO 

>> 




0 

H -H 

0 

d d 

•rH 

•H 

-P 

d 

-p 

-P -P 

d 

O 

•p 




0 

0 i> 

6 

cd O M 


W 

•H 


d 

•H 

H 





•0 

0 *H 

0 

ft -r- 

aJ 

d 0 

O 

-p 


ft 0 

& 

cd 





0 

H ft 

ft 

0 s s 

ft « 

O 

•rH 

u 

-P co 

-P 





& 

0 

CO 


& 


d 

H 


d 

ft 

0 

ft 

8 


cd 

O 




The unit cost includes any additional work generated by corrections from proofing, catalog comparison, or quality control. 

The unit cost for direct-read OCR (. 167 ) has been increased by .004, 10 percent of the machine cost for unedited tape inscriber records (.04l) because an 
estimated 10 percent of the records would be rejected by OCR and thus would have to be input by keyboarding. 

The unit cost of format recognition in E2, E3, F2, F3, G2, and G3 is too small (less than .001) to be included in this table. 














































INDEX 


Abel (Richard) & Co., 129 
Acceptance sampling, 84 
Automation in American libraries, 
111-123 

Binary search, 204 - 206 , 210 
Books for College Libraries , 27 , 129 
Books in Print , 27 , 129 
Bucket approach to searching, 204 , 
210 

Catalog comparison: cost, 8l, 94 , 98 , 
226; description, 8O-83; editing 
and, 77, 82; justification, 33, 

151; printing cost and, 66; 
recycling and, 217-220; staff, 
88-91, 96, 225; technical alter¬ 
natives using, 11, 46-48 
Centralization of conversion, 4 , 10 , 

109 , 135 

Complexity of catalog records, 55 , 

78 

Content designators, 36, 40 - 44 , 55 , 
82, 163-182 

Computer processing time, 211 - 216 , 
220 - 223 ; see also Format recog¬ 
nition; Printing; Sorting 
Consultants, list of, 134 
Conversion of catalog records: bene¬ 
fits, 4 , 13, 103; centralization 
of, 4 , 10, 83, 127, 133 ; consult¬ 
ants' opinions about, 125-127; 
cost, 97-101, 133, 167 ; flexible 
approach to, 55; need for, 1, 13, 
125; other libraries’ requirements 
for, 113-116, 118-120, 122, 130; 
problems, 1 - 4 , Il6-ll8, 126 
Conversion priorities, 10 , 26, 29 - 
32; consultants’ opinions about. 


27, 127, 130; costs to Implement, 
97, 99, 100; exclusions from, 21; 
other libraries' opinions about, 
26, 113, 116, 122 

Conversion strategy, 26 - 29 , 127 - 13 ° 

Converter for magnetic tape inscrib. 
er, 50, 58 

Cost per record; see Unit costs 

Disk, 60 , 69, 186 - 191 , 201 , 206 

Distribution service for retrospec¬ 
tive records, 3, 121, 132, 165, 
184 ; computer processing time 
for, 213, 216, 222, 223; cost, 

104 , 133 ; LC Card Division and, 

28, 101, 104 , 132; software, 198, 
205-211 

Duplication in library collections, 
20, 25 , 28, 106-109 

Editing: catalog comparison and, 77, 
82; computer processing time and, 
213, 221, 222; consultants’ 
opinions about, 127, 131; cost, 

94 , 97 , 226; definition, 40 - 42 , 

75; error rate and, 217-220; 
examples of, 180-182; format 
recognition and, 4 l, 63, 131, l66, 
169 - 171 , 176 - 178 , 193 , 213 , 221; 

input equipment cost and, 55-58, 
6l, 97-98; input production rate 
and, 58, 6l; other libraries' 
experience with, 115-117; soft¬ 
ware requirements and, 193; staff, 
75-77, 87, 90, 225; technical 
alternatives and, 45-49 

Errors, 50 , 53 , 76 , 79 , 83-85, 170, 
216-220 


227 




Filing, 17 , 126 , 167 
File maintenance, 211 , 213 , 221 
File organization, 3 > 18 , 117 , 126 , 
199-210 

Format recognition: algorithms for, 
171 - 178 ; cost, 64 , 98 , 226; defi¬ 
nition, 42 ; editing and, 4 l, 63, 

76, 131, 166, 169 - 171 , 176-178, 

193 , 213 , 221 ; OCR and, 7 6; proc¬ 
essing time for, 63, 213, 221; 
software, 104 , 193 , 211; recycling 
and, 216-220; technical alterna¬ 
tives and, 11, 46-48 

Function codes, 170 
Funding for conversion, 3, 8 , 12 , 
102 - 105 , 115 , 118 , 133 

Hardware: basic configuration, 185- 
188; cost, 44 , 60, 64 , 68-73, 
186 - 191 ; see also Input devices; 
Storage 

Holdings information, 12 , 34 - 38 , ll6, 
120, 126, 162 

Input: cost, 94 , 98 , 99 , 226 ; descrip¬ 
tion, 77-79; keying rate and, 52, 
6l, 78; staff, 88, 90, 91, 225 
Input devices: cost, 55 - 63 , 226 ; 
evaluation of, 49 , 55 , ll6; techni¬ 
cal alternatives and, 45 
Institute of Library Research, 131 

Keying; see Input 

Language as a factor in conversion, 

8, 11, 18, 28, 30-32, 79, 82, 128, 

194 , 197 

Levels of machine-readable records, 
l6, 36, 118, 163-168; consultants' 
opinions about, I3O-I32; defini¬ 
tion, 43 , 164 

Libraries represented in survey, 
list of, 123 

Library of Congress: conversion needs 
of, 29, 33; funding of conversion 
effort by, 102 - 104 ; policy of 
changes in catalog records, 80, 

147 , 156-l6l; space problems of, 95 


LC Card Division, 28 , 32, 104 , 133 > 
213 

LC Card Division mechanization pro¬ 
ject, 12, 101, 127 

LC Card Division record set: descrip¬ 
tion, 23, 27 , 48 , 74 , 136; OCR 
and, 52 ; Official Catalog and, 
80-82, 141 - 152 ; use of conversion, 
11 , 23 

LC catalog records: bibliographies 
as a source of, 27, 127; changes 
in, 22-25, 80-82, 84 , 14 1-162; 
complexity, 55 , 78; consultants' 
opinions about, 127; format 
recognition and, I7O-I78; number, 
23 , 136 - 140 ; OCR and, 52 , 59 ; 
quality, 2, 21; use by other 
libraries, 119 , 133 

LC Official Catalog: conversion of, 
26, 47 - 49 ; description, 21, 23; 
master data base and, 11, 22, 32, 
128; record set and, 80-82, l 4 l- 
152 

LC shelflist, 25 - 26 , 128 , 144 , 162 

Links, 202-210 

List entry, 202-210 

Machine-readable records: complexity, 
55, 78; content designators for, 

36, 40 - 44 , 55 , 82, 163-182; for¬ 
mat recognition and, 169-179; 
length, 55-56, 59, 68, 187; levels 
of, 16, 36, 43 , 118, 130-132, 163- 
l68; other libraries' production 
of, ll6; quality, 80, 83-85, 133; 
standardization, 2, 4 , 8, 10, 18, 

21, 36, 109, 121, 168 

Magnetic tape inscriber: cost, 58, 

6l, 97 ; use, 11, 45 , 50, 56, 78, 

90 

Manpower production rates, 40 , 76, 

94 ; complexity and, 56, 78, 82; 
effective working day and, 56, 86 

Man-year, 86 

MARC Distribution Service: consult¬ 
ants' opinions about, 126; coverage, 
1, 10, 30, 102; experience in, 65, 
78, 79 , 83, 95 , l 4 l, 144 ; 


228 


staff, 30, 76, 95; use, 37, 119 
MARC II format, 2 , 16, 43 , I3O-I32, 
163-168; see also Content designa¬ 
tors 

Master data base, 20 - 26 , 128 

Merging; see Sorting 

Microfilming, 53, 92 - 94 , 96, 98 , 226 

Milestone table, 206 

MT/ST; see Magnetic tape inscriber 

Multiprogramming, 66, 186, 212 

National data store: characteristics, 
10 , 21 , 22 , 34-38; cost, 104 ; 
national union catalog and, 5 ; 12 , 

19, 126, 152 

National Serials Data Program, 22 , 

127 

National Union Catalog, 21 , 34 - 37 , 
107; master data base and, 24 , 

132; reports to, 20, 108, 110 

OCR, direct-read: cost, 57 ; 6l, 97 , 
98; description, 52-5^; format 
recognition and, 76; input staff 
required, 90; processing rate, 58; 
reject rate of, 5 k, 98; software, 
73 , 10 °, 104 ; technical alternative 
for, 45 

OCR scanner, 45 , 51 , 58 , 61, 226 
On-demand service, 28 , 132, 185, 205 - 
210, 211, 213, 222 
On-line typewriter, 45 , 51 , 59 , 62, 
226 

Permanent index, 201-210 
Printing, 46 - 48 , 211 ; computer proc¬ 
essing time for, 65-68, 186, 213, 
221; cost, 65-68, 98, 226 
Proofing; see Editing 

Quality control, 11 ; cost, 9 k, 98 , 
226; description, 83-85; staff, 
89 - 91 , 225 

REC 0 N study, assumptions of, 7 
Record set; see LC Card Division 
record set 


Recycling, 171 , 212 , 216-220 
Retrospective catalog records, defi¬ 
nition of, 30 

Search code, 132, 199-210 
Searching, 13, 18 , 29 , 213 , 222 , 

223 

Selection from data base, 74 , 92 - 94 , 

96 , 98 , 226 

Serials, 21 , 113, 114 , 127 
Site preparation, 73 
Software, 188 - 210 ; cost, 5 , 44 , 73 , 
100, 211; development time for, 
211; funds for, 12, 104 ; other 
libraries’ experience with, 117 
Sorting: catalog comparison and, 

8l; computer processing time for, 
65, 214 - 216 , 221, 223; cost, 64 , 
98, 226; technical alternatives 
and, 46-48 

Staffing: extent of, 40 , 85 - 91 ; 95 ; 
105 , 224 ; cost, 92 - 94 ; other 
libraries' experience in, ll6- 
118, 121 

Storage, 68-72, 186 - 191 ; cost, 44 , 
60, 68-70, 100; searching methods 
and, 199-210; sorting and, 214 - 
216 

System capacity, 7O-72 
System design, 3 ; 7 ; 12 , 100 , 104 , 
115 - 117 ; 121 

Technical alternatives, 39 ; 44 - 49 ; 
62; cost, 93; 98, 99; 226; staff, 
89 - 91 ; 225 

Threaded list, 201 , 202 , 206-210 
Two-up printing, 67, 221 

Unit costs: derivation, 55 - 57 ; 93 ; 
machine, 55-62, 64 - 68 , 97 - 99 ; 

226; manpower, 75, 92 - 94 , 97 - 99 ; 
226; other libraries' estimates 
of, 115 

Updating, 3 ; 24 , ll8, l 4 l, 151 ; 

rate of, 3 ^; 87, 80, 144 , 217 
User needs, 1 , 10 , 14 , 20 , 27 - 29 ; 

31, 129 ; 184 , 198 
User profile, 198 , 223 


229 


Verification of machine-readable 
records; see Quality control 


Uses of machine-readable records, 

7 , 13 - 19 , 114 , 119 , 121 



230 


U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1969 0-351-845 











































































. «• ' * * - 0 N o 

o ^ • 

n \ 1 < 

; ’’b # : 

o* 0 ° ^ «> 

0 ^ 8 ' 1 .r 

4 V * l -“•*• v> v v * 

x 5 ) * ss. A i 

v<s 

*%{* * * ■ 0 ? 0 

% . 0 * V • 

-° No * ^ . 0 ^ t « L, _ 8 * ^o 

* v * 

■ ^ ^ 


O ^ A * 

0 ^X-V o 
a: 



< ^ c 0 N 0 „ ^ 

o 4* 

*j> \N \ 


. «5 ;K S : *■ ^ *'*^SSf* &' 

<$> ,. 4 * 0 " ° ^ * ' 1 

V .s*^Lj4. cv <p *>• V **>!'* c\ 

* •v*Sfl&w\ ^ a* /aWa> /> srtSR&r. %. 



: ^ v ’V 

* YV ^ 

* u ' 8 * r o Jy c 080 -? "b* 

G{1f///l2-, •* <n * ^SNNXUfV* ^ 



•' O <1 

’ *V o 

*9 ^ 

* 0 *^> * 

• *° % *'•'• . 

aP > v 5 s 

** / * * ‘ - - 4 



* <V ^ 

14 A <V ♦ 

o v t * L J 1 8 <’ *o_ aP’ g° 8 °* ^ 

x ^/*?/Y77~2~ "* o *1 * _r^\ „ <* *?* 

* Gr/llf'S* - • n k <fvs\\\ * T 




"O * A * 


> *° ^ 

+ r^ ^ 


s *• 

' 

« v -v . 

^t;'.* ,o 


^0 

4 o. 

-V ^ CV % 

8 ' 1 * ^ %. * 

^ v % s* VL^ c^ 

’o ^ %■ 



0 s s V 

.* <>y % 0 

' j? * 0 , 

r °^ t ' t V 8 ^ ^b 

+M r$ 'l£m^\ ^o V^ 


?> 0 ^ 



- ^ v %. 

G v t O. '•"•>* A <. * 

0^ t * L L 8 ^ ^O, 0°Z°* ^ 

N ^ ^SN\W n^ * 



" •'''•*’ ^ , f '°^’ 4 ' a80 ° ,0° 

v ,^>,''-v CV ,0’ ^ v N ••ZtLr* ^ 


y° V-. 



c 


•^o« 


4 O^ 

^ N v r 
* c 


w 



O 'o , * » A 



<*. 


. 1 ' * -» 'O 
O 



* AV ”^s 

v <v 0 

^ c o- t --' 8 - 

k N << < 5 vvoAn*^k* t v ♦ 







"> \> s 

°. **<& ; 

n Cp ^ o 

♦ V V, O 

^ o^ ^b * 

1ir . # ^‘»*'^ r 0 ^ t* l A!'* *^o 

' B -« 4 ’ ■**A 0 < -of 

> os y> 

o* -a, A- cv 




"o K 






° ^° ’V 

* _o ^ 




* .1 

> <;5 

* ( -^OU ^ o * 4 

* • , n • <£r O 


c.s '^o ° tww\uV • 

.„ o ..... -\ <> o 

c«- «-^. °o A -v ,o* 

V*> ” A \ r *••* <v KJ '°'> h v '\ 

' * o 0 o * o * <$> V ,1/. ^ A> 0 * 0 

£■_*. »._ .v^tV. %, c trmx. °.. .w* • ■ 

\^....^ ,r ’‘\^...\.' ; ^^ o? .. c kZ'" •■.'•• A ° 



f\ v\^'^Ca j 

** °.vff* ^ •* 

V5, 'O . » » ./V 

* ^O 0 0 " O , *<& , I / « " A> r 0 N o ^ 

,-r o .V«xv^ «£ C, O A .°_s^ *„ ^ 

^ V ^ 0^ ^4jf|fp^ . 0( ^w^y;. o> • ( pi«^'' "oK 

° a9° ^ \» %0 N °°* ^°° ^/^n»’ ^ °o o° %, ** 

^ */aWa° a- *VWv. ^ a* *VWV° ^ ^ ^ ^ .^^/iTo ^ 


o, 'o . »* A 

r 0> ^ C 

C * dpVTTfe, ^ o • 

”, '•'M 'oi? •■•” 



«* A^ * 

° • 



^ V - 

_ * % y 

<>. -’V.s 4 <G o 'o. A » A 

* 0^ » t,s - ^o / . 


^0 

^ * °»° 0 ^° 'V. * • • ■• 

V ., cv jy f, i * o, ^ V , 




$ V ° 
^ ^ % 


«% ^f. 

« ^ & ♦ 

% °y^^K* <y % * 

'«»•»* A <r ^ 

> ^O o 0 N ° + 

" ° ^ 

^ <-k o /x^^Pfe - ^ r$ 



4 O 

> .tO/ ^ ^ 

*■ C> % 

> _ s • ♦ 




^ 0 V ^o A^ r 0 0 N ° -9 

. « ^ a? * 

o' • ^ O V 




, » u -v v^®’.' • 

A 4, fv • # 

^ °N°° ^9 ^ 4 '"' 1 ’ 4 # 

'* ^ A .0 "> V % »* * 4 W* 




^; '"O V 

h°‘ ^° ^ 

- / % ^ 
jy «. ♦ ° *> 

^ %A •* 



> 4 °** « 

^ ^ N <\ ^ o>v^S<s^^* A «. < ~^^/JJ J ^^ * — N > • ** r\ a. 

9 ' 1 ■ 4^ . * 0 " ° ° A° %+ * 9 ' 1 ‘ <y % & 0 » 0 0 A. 0 'V 4 

v % *LZrLr* a <p v ^ v % a »^o, 


o 4 L 0 vj > ^ 

» V' ^ 

/j ^ - c 

















